lished an exhortation to the several Churches within the bounds to carry out the Presbyterian order and discipline. This was signed by James Hyatt, Moderator; Thomas Johnson, Assessor; Edward Gee, Scribe.

How far the Presbyterian order was established in other parts of England cannot be very clearly determined. The statement, taken from Echard and copied from book to book, that Presbytery never had footing except in London and Lancaster, is manifestly incorrect. These were the first places where the new Church government was established, and the authority was greater than could have been afterward obtained, because the power of the Long Parliament was yet unbroken. Presbyterians being slow to acknowledge the new political Government, and never heartily recognising the Protector, did not seek the public sanction which the firstformed classes obtained. But they united by voluntary association, according to Presbyterian order, in most parts of England. We find Presbyteries formed in Wiltshire, Essex, Hampshire, Dorset, Derby, York, Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and other counties. Even Neale gives the following testimony: "It was happy for the wise and moderate Presbyterians that the Protector disarmed their discipline of its coercive power, for he still left them all that was sufficient for the purposes of religion; they had their monthly or quarterly classical Presbyteries in every county, for the ordination of ministers, by imposition of hands, according to the Directory, to whom they gave certificates or testimonials." This evidence, from a witness impartial because no friend of the Presbyterians, sufficiently proves the prevalence of the system, as a matter of historical fact.

The Act of Parliament by which Presbyterianism became the established religion of England was passed on the 29th August, 1648, having been read the second time and committed on the 21st June. In this Act are collected the several ordinances for establishing the Presbyterial government, and it ordains that "all rishes and places whatsoever within England and Wales shall be under the government of congregational, classical, provincial, and national assemblies, except the houses or chapels of the King and his children, and of the peers of the realm, which are to continue free for the exercise

pa

of Divine duties, according to the Directory, and not otherwise;" it gives directions for the choice of ruling elders in every parish, and for proper persons to be judges of the qualifications of the persons chosen; it appoints commissioners to divide the whole kingdom into distinct classical Presbyteries; it gives direction about the constituting of provincial and national Synods, with the extent of their several powers; it determines the method of ordination of ministers, of dispensing church censures, and suspension from the sacrament; and last of all, it gives directions for excommunication and absolution, but lays no penalty upon recusants, or such as do not come to the sacrament, or submit to their discipline;"which was the utmost length that Presbytery obtained in this kingdom."*

This ordinance received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, and was therefore as truly an Act of the English Legislature as any passed during these civil troubles. The King offered, in the Conference at Newport in October of the same year, to give the Royal assent to the ordinance, if enforced for three years only, till further settlement of religious affairs could be obtained. This concession was refused, and the ordinance was valid on the authority of Parliament. It was passed, however, on the eve of the overthrow of the Parliament by the usurpation of the army, and was carried into execution only so far as the power or policy of Cromwell permitted during his Protectorate. Public authority was not then, however, any more than it is now, requisite for the efficient and free exercise of Presbyterian government and order. Had Presbyterians been content in those days to attend to their spiritual and ecclesiastical functions, without considering the aggressive use of the civil sword as essential to the success of their polity, a very different history of our Church would have this day to be written. Cromwell was ready to wield the civil sword in a defensive and protective way in behalf of Presbytery, as well as of Independency, and all other religious sects that he deemed not opposed to the civil government. Papists he did not tolerate, because they acknowledged a foreign jurisdiction within the realm of England. Prelatists he did not tolerate because their cause

"Neale's History of the Puritans," part iii. chap. 10. Scobell, cap. 117, p. 165.

was bound up with that of the Royal rebels against the Commonwealth. Some of the wilder sectaries he did not tolerate, because their practices as well as their tenets were dangerous to the State and to society. In some points Cromwell's views of toleration were defective, but they were far in advance of those of Owen and the leading Independent Divines. The celebrated list of "the sixteen Fundamental Articles" without the profession of which the protection of the State was not to be afforded, was worded by Dr. John Owen, assisted by Dr. John Goodwin, Mr. Philip Nye, and Mr. Sydrach Simpson, three of the leading Independents who had sat in the Westminster Assembly! Yet Independents now-a-days have the effrontery to represent their denomination as having alone in the seventeenth century possessed the principle of religious liberty, and to hold up the Dissenting brethren of the Westminster Assembly as models of Christian toleration! The proposition of the Independent divines was justly rejected by Cromwell and his Council, who declared that all men should be left to the liberty of their consciences, except profane persons, such as preach sedition, contentious railers, and persons of loose conversation, whose sins being open, make them the subject of the magistrate's sword, who ought not to bear it in vain.

We readily admit, and acknowledge with shame, that Presbyterians manifested the same narrow spirit as the Independents, with the worse feature of carrying their intolerance into more minute points of doctrine, and also into matters of Church discipline and government. Assuredly the unreasonable and infatuated intolerance of our Presbyterian ancestors is to be counted one of the chief causes of the failure of those measures which they commenced for the carrying on of the work of the Reformation in England. The only defence that can be made is, that religious intolerance was the error of the times, superior to which only a few noble spirits rose. In this dignity Cromwell and Milton* appear pre-emi

nent.

We subjoin an extract from Milton's "Defence of the English People," in reply to Salmasius, who accused the Government of employing in civil offices men of all religious opinions:

"Reprehendis quod magistratus nostri colluviem omnium sectarum recipiunt; quid ni recipiant? Quos ecclesiæ est é coetu fidelium ejicere, non magistratuum é civitate pellere, siquidem in leges civiles non peccant. Primó

In the collections of State papers, and in the official records of the times, many notices will be found of the position of the Presbyterian Church from the time of the Westminster Assembly till the Restoration. But it is not so much from historical documents as from the other literature of the time that we ascertain the real extension of the system throughout England. One instance will suffice to illustrate what we mean. In the Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, by his son, the well-known Matthew Henry, the Commentator, we find the following passage, relating to his ordination :-"The nearest Presbytery was in the hundred of Bradford North, in Shropshire. This class was constituted by ordinance of Parliament, in April, 1647. In twelve years' time it publicly ordained sixty-three ministers. The manner of Mr. Henry's ordination was according to the known directory of the Assembly of Divines, and the common usage of the Presbyterians. He was ordained Sept. 16, 1657."*

Episcopalian writers have frequently complained of the hardships endured by their party, and the removal of many ministers, in order to make way for the establishment of Presbytery. This they endeavour to set off against the cruelties connected with the Bartholomew Act of 1662. How far there is truth in the parallel, will appear from a simple statement of the facts of the case. During the early sittings of the Long Parliament complaints came from all parts of England of the character and conduct of the parochial clergy. An inquiry was instituted by the Standing Committee of the House on religion. The result of this inquiry was, that commissioners were aphomines ut tuto ac libere sine vi atque injuriis vitam agerent, convenere in civitatem; ut sancte et religiosé in Ecclesiam; illa legis, hæc disciplinam habet suam, plane diversam: hinc toto orbe Christiano per tot annos bellum ex bello seritur, quod Magistratus et Ecclesia inter se officia confundunt. Quapropter et Papisticam minimè toleramus; neque enim eam tam esse religionem intelligimus, quam obtentu religionis tyrannidem pontificam civilis potentiæ spoliis ornatam, quæ contra ipsum Christi institutum ad se rapuit.-Miltoni Defensio, 1651. Præfatio, p. 16.

The Narrative at length, with the certificate of ordination, will be found in the "Life of Philip Henry," Nelson's new edition, in the series of Puritan works, pp. 79, 80. The testimonial of ordination bears to be, "under the ordinance of Parliament, 29th August, 1648," and "given by the Presbyters of the fourth class, in the county of Salop, commonly called Bradford North Class."

66

pointed by Parliament for the trying and removing of "scandalous ministers," such as were convicted of immorality, of open disaffection to the Parliament, or of having deserted their cures. In no case was any conviction executed until after fair and full trial. Mr. Baxter says, they cast out the grosser sort of insufficient and scandalous clergy, and some few civil men that had acted in the wars for the King, and set up the late (Popish) innovations, but they left in near one half of those that were but barely tolerable." When we consider the extreme difficulty with which redress could be had in those times in the ordinary tribunals, of which some idea may be had from the procedure of the Ecclesiastical Courts in our own day with respect to clerical delinquents, we are not surprised at the institution of a Special Commission by the Parliament. Mr. Baxter adds that "in all the countries with which he was acquainted, six to one at least, if not more, that were sequestered by the Committees, were by the oaths of witnesses proved insufficient, or scandalous, or both. How different the cause of the ejectment of the 2000 Nonconformists! Moreover, by order of the Parliament, one fifth of the revenue of the ejected Prelatists was retained for the maintenance of their families, an act of generosity not imitated at the Restoration.

On Cromwell's accession to the supreme power as Lord Protector in 1653, one of the articles in the new constitution, entitled the "Government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland," was, "that the laws in being relating to the Presbyterian religion were not to be suspended, altered, abrogated, or repealed; nor any new law made, but by consent of Parliament." Provision was indeed made, through the Commissioners of trial, for the admission of other than Presbyterian ministers into the English Church, so that the Establishment during the Protectorate, comprised ministers of various denominations-Independents, Baptists, and moderate Episcopalians. Presbyterianism was still, however, according to the Act of 1648, the only legally recognised form of Church government, and so continued until 1660. That the Presbyterians were mainly instrumental in restoring the King is now on all hands allowed. When General Monk summoned the Parliament of February, 1660, chiefly consisting of the secluded Members of 1648, the Presbyterians had

the whole Government in their possession. On the 5th of March an Act was passed declaring the Westminster Assembly's Confession to be the Public Confession of Faith of the Church of England. "Presbytery," says Neale, "was restored to all the power it had ever enjoyed. The chief places of profit, trust, and honour were put into their hands. The army was in disgrace; the Independents deprived of all their influence, and all things managed by the Presbyterians, supported by Monk's forces. The Presbyterians were in possession of the whole power of England; the Council of State, the chief officers of the army and navy, and the governors of the chief forts and garrisons were theirs; their clergy were in possession of both Universities, and of the best livings of the kingdom."

On the 16th of March the Long Parliament finally dissolved, after summoning a new Parliament to meet April 25, 1660. In the new Parliament the Presbyterians still had the chief power, but their alliance with the Royalists and Episcopal party proved speedily fatal to their influence. "They were not without cautions from the Independents and others, not to be too forward in trusting their new allies, but they would neither hear, see, nor believe till it was too late. As the army and Independents outwitted the Presbyterians in 1648, the Presbyterians, in conjunction with Monk and the Scots, blew up the Independents in 1659, and the next year the Episcopal party, by dexterous management of the credulous Presbyterians, undermined and deceived them both." The Convention Parliament * was chiefly occupied in the arrangements for restoring Charles II., and in laying the foundation of the new Government. The Presbyterians were amused during the whole session with conferences, and hopes were held out of an accommodation with the Episcopalian party, under the scheme of Archbishop Usher. To this the leading ministers, such as Calamy, Manton, Reynolds, and Case, gave their adherence. No good

result came however from the conferences either with the King at Breda, or after the King's return, with the bishops at the Savoy conference. The Parliament was dissolved after sitting only eight months, "partly because it was not legally chosen, and because it was too much Presbyterian; the Prime Minister, Hyde, having now formed a design, in concert with the bishops, of evacuating the Church of all the Presbyterians."-Neale, part iv. chap. 4.

The next Parliament was thoroughly Royalist and Prelatic, and the Presbyterians, after being overreached in many intrigues, and mortified by many humiliations, were gradually driven from power, and at last expelled from the Established Church by the Act requiring conformity to the re-imposed and unreformed Anglican Service-book. Abject submission to civil tyranny was required by that Act, as well as religious conformity, and re-ordination by prelates. Part of the declaration made by every clergyman was :-" I, A. B., do declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King; and that I do abhor that traitorous position of taking up arms by his authority, against his person, or against those who are commissioned by him; and that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by law established."

From the 24th August, 1662, the Feast of St. Bartholomew, being the time limited for subscription to the declaration, all true Presbyterians ceased to have any connexion with the Anglican Church, which they had long vainly struggled to reform. Had some liberty of judgment, and diversity of action been allowed on certain points, the disruption in the Church might have been averted, and Dissent would have been less excusable. Unhappily the same errors remain in the Anglican formularies, and the same evils in the State Church, until the present day. Many pious and excellent ministers can now however remain in the Estab

lishment, notwithstanding the presence of those things which the godly divines of the seventeenth century were unable to bear. Consciences are more elastic, and the science of casuistry more perfect, than in the age of the Puritans.*

*In the "Messengers" for 1847, a sketch was given by the editor, of the history of the Presbyterian Church in England from the

By the 36th Canon every preacher of the Established Church must declare that "the Book of Common Prayer and of ordering of bishops, priests, and deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God!" Such is the present position of the Established clergy. In the words of Mr. Baptist Noel, in his Essay on the Union of the Church and State, "they must adjust their belief to their circumstances as best they may." If there were any hope of improvement, upright men might remain in the Church, or might enter it, and contend for reform, but "the State" (we again quote from Baptist Noel) "has effectually prevented clergymen from attempting the correction of any errors in the doctrines of the Establishment; and to perpetuate these errors, no Assembly of the Establishment is permitted to meet, which could revise the Articles, correct the Liturgy, or attempt any fuller profession of Evangelical doctrine." "The Church of England can make no law, rectify no abuse, correct no error, seek no improvement."

ON DEMONS.-DÆMONIAC POSSESSION.-DÆMON WORSHIP.

WHEN mankind, having their minds darkened by sin, begun to lose the knowledge of the true God, the works of nature

were calculated to arrest their attention. and heat through the world,-the moon The sun in his daily career diffusing light and making this midnight sky a vast and stars ruling the darkness of night, bosom sending forth all those supplies diadem, the earth, too, from her rich necessary for the wants and pleasing to the tastes of men, these did attract man's attention, and call forth his devotions. At first he worshipped them, not as self-existent powers, but as visible and glorious manifestations of that great

Reformation down to the Westminster As

sembly. In the early numbers for 1848 the graphic account of the Assembly by Professor M'Crie was reprinted. It would be of great service to the Presbyterian cause to have a short summary of the history of our Church, as great ignorance prevails in England on the subject. A Committee of Synod was appointed some years ago to prepare such a sketch. It would be very desirable, especially in these times, when inquiry is afoot on ecclesiastical affairs, to have some brief historical account of Presbyterianism in England.