JUS DIVINUM OF PRESBYTERY.

105

unblemished and complete, a more philosophical and truly theological summary of Christian doctrine and sentiment than was produced by that assembly, as designated the "Larger and Shorter Catechism of the Assembly of Westminster." The only fault to it is, that it is not for children; it is hardly for men; it is almost for a superior order of beings; so complete, so masterly, and so whole is it, in itself, as a representation, as I think, of scripture doctrine.

The next matter which the Assembly had to settle, was the most difficult question of all they were required to consider. It was this:-the theologians will at once remember it-the jure divino of presbytery: or, in good homely English, is presbyterianism, in truth, God's appointed way of governing the church of Jesus Christ? Must all the people be under the Session, and all the sessions under the Presbytery, and all the presbyteries under the Synod, as the form prescribed, according to the word of God? Then the second branch of this question was,-Is it the duty of the magistrate to place all the nation under this one form of church government? and the consequent obligation of all religious congregations to conform to its regulations. This was the outward aspect of the question, they were to discuss; which occupied the assembly in consideration for thirty days. But during fifteen days more the independents opposed the Divine right of presbytery, and for fifteen days further defended the Divine right of congregational church government. So that these eleven men kept at bay a hundred during this time. It was a glorious strugglea glorious Thermopyla for liberty of conscience; for as surely as that principle which had been advocated-had been carried-the jus divinum of the magistracy would have followed; the jus divinum of presbytery would have entangled this country in a yoke of bondage equal to all that it had ever suffered before. The presbyterians, however,

had the votes. They were what has been called in recent times "a tyrannical majority;" but they declared that these dissenting brethren were so logical, so dialectical, so peculiar, that it was vexing to hear them so talk.

By a large majority it was voted, December 12th, 1644-5, in the Assembly, that there should be a subordination of synods, with lay elders, as so many courts of judicature, with power to dispense church censures. The independents entered their dissent and protest in strong terms, and urged that the main proposition to be determined was "whether a Divine right of Church government did not remain with every congregation." Erastians and independents resisted the proposition, that 'the form adopted by the majority was binding in all ages of the church;' the former regarding presbytery, or any other model, as a political institution, convenient in the judgement of the magistrate, and therefore proper to be established. I should have stated, in reference to the episcopalians that some of them who were summoned refused to attend; because Charles their king issued his proclamation against the assembly; and some who at first took part in their proceedings afterwards withdrew. There were of these Dr. Morley, afterwards bishop of Winchester, Dr. Featley, and others of distinction. But there was little controversy between the episcopalians and presbyterians. The Erastians only waited to ascertain what the magistrate would declare to be acceptable. Mr. Whitlocke stated distinctly what his party thought when he addressed the prolocutor, and said, "it is objected that no form of government is jure divino; but that in general, all things must be done decently and in order. A government is certainly jure divino; but whether presbytery, episcopacy, independency, or any other form of government, be jure divino or not, that is, whether there be a præscript, rule or command of scripture for any of these forms, will not be admitted by many as a clear thing."

INDEPENDENT BRETHREN.

107

The controversy thus devolved on the presbyterians and independents, or congregationalists. The congregationalists, as we would call them, complained that the question was not put in another form. They were called to prove the negative, and they thought their antagonists should be called to do so likewise. They wanted the question to be put in two forms; and as they had to meet the presbyterians in the positive form, they wished for the same advantage on their side. They were ready to assert that the word of God prescribed congregationalism, and that it was not the duty of government to appoint a religion. But they had no liberty. All they could do was to say, "No, no; that is not it." The consequence was, they were driven to the syllogistic form of argument; and Baillie frequently complains of the dissenting brethren-dissenting from the principles of the majority-that they were such pertinacious logicians, and pragmatical disputants; so scrupulous in requiring the minor and major propositions and corollaries, that no progress could be made; that their number was so inconsiderable, the assembly should not think it worth their while to debate the question with them; especially as they set themselves industriously to puzzle the cause, and render the clearest propositions obscure rather than argue the truth or falseness of them. It would be a legitimate answer to such complaints that numbers do not constitute truth, and assertions do not deserve the authority of argument. The dissenting brethren had no strength but in their sound principles, logical demonstrations, and scriptural authorities. They could not otherwise arrest their antagonists, or support the cause which they had espoused. They appealed first to the law and the testimony, and demanded, "As you allege the principle to be such, we ask you to prove it." The dissenting brethren felt themselves constrained to memorialise parliament, as they did not think justice had been done

to them. However, the argument was usually, as I think, all on the right side, and the majority, unhappily, always on the wrong. The seventy were far more numerous than the ten, and seven times stronger in the majority.

A few weeks ago the editor of the Times repeated a current but most unfounded imputation on the independents. His words are, "The independents sought to oppress, to persecute, and cruelly use other sects;" and he affirms "that, by the mercy of God, they were prevented from bringing into operation their principles, else they would have done as much mischief in the government of the country as was done by their persecutors." Now here is Baillie, a man who, to look at his austere countenance, is enough to convince you that he was not likely to represent the independents in any light more favourable to their historical character than they deserved, and he accuses them as coming forward with the proposition: that they should have toleration both for themselves and other sects. Again he says, "This day Cromwell has

obtained an order of the House of Commons to refer to the committee of both kingdoms the accommodation, or toleration of the independents; a high and unexpected order, yet, by God's help, we will make use of it, contrary to the design of the procurers." There are some debated points clearly ascertained by these extracts. It is proved that the presbyters were not for toleration-I do not say the presbyterians of to-day, and I hope you will ever consider that I am historically dealing with this picture-though I cannot understand how a man should cherish the establishment principle and yet hold, soundly and philosophically, the principle of toleration. In this assembly there were advocates of non-toleration -of intolerance-intolerance in its worst form, putting down independency, and resisting those who pleaded for liberty to all others as well as themselves.

Confidence in the Scottish army and nation, and the

presumption of overwhelming numbers, tempted the presbyterians to prepare an artillery, which, in less than twenty years, was turned against themselves. They replied to their independent antagonists, "that whereas their brethren say, that uniformity ought to be urged no further than is agreeable to all men's consciences and to their edification; it seems to them as if their brethren not only desired liberty of conscience for themselves, but for all men, and would have us think, that we are bound by our covenant to bring the churches in the three kingdoms to no nearer a conjunction and uniformity than is consistent with the liberty of all men's consciences; which whether it be the sense of the covenant we leave with the honourable committee." We have the report of Baillie to the same effect. He evidently thought such discussions most unpropitious to the jus divinum of presbyterianism. He takes comfort when assured that the Scotch army is approaching the metropolis; for then the independents would be not so hard to manage. But when its route lay to a greater distance from London, he charges them as being more polemical than ever. This was his liberty of conscience. If at any time the discussion took another turn, and they felt as if they were gaining their point, the presbyterians sent word to their friends at a distance that the nearer approach of the army to the metropolis was unnecessary, because they were likely to carry it. I point this out to show how slow is the growth of the principle that I believe all present hold sacred;liberty of conscience. These were godly men; they excel, I doubt not, among the stars that shall shine for ever and ever. They loved the people with an intensity of love; they were willing to make sacrifices-go to dungeons and, thinking that the jus divinum was the will of Christ, they held by it.

This was a season of great anxiety, and while the subject was under discussion, the members of parliament,