Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/711

Rh ENGLAND.] PRESBYTERIANISM 687 actively resisted. The king himself is subject to his own particular church alone, and even though apostate or an evil liver he retains his full supremacy. It is clear that the denial, in the Scottish sense, of the state supremacy is not expressed by the English Puritan : that which galled him was the jurisdiction of other ecclesiastics. From the synod of Dort in 1618 Arminianism -gained ground in England in spite of the fact that Abbot, the primate, was head of the &quot; doctrinal &quot; (or old Calvinist) Puritans. As soon as Laud came into power the Govern ment attacked Presbyterianism wherever it was found. Guernsey was compelled to accept Episcopacy, as Jersey had been in 1605, and the ten foreign congregations in England were placed under the control of the English Church. The English congregations in Hamburg and the Netherlands were also ordered to relinquish their synods. The system of the church was aristocratic exclusiveness. One effect of the Scottish outburst in 1638 and of the events which followed was of course largely to strengthen in especial the Presbyterian interest. The action of the church tended constantly to cut off waverers. Baxter, for in stance, was led to examine and finally to throw off Episcopacy by the &quot;et csetera&quot; oath in 1640. Nevertheless at the opening of the Civil Wars, if he is to be believed, Noncon formity, and in especial Presbyterianism, was very weak. &quot;Where I was bred before 1640, which was in divers places, I knew not one Presbyterian clergyman or layman. . . . About as many Nonconformists as counties were left, and those few stuck most at subscription and ceremonies, and but few of them studied or understood the Presby terian or Independent disciplinary causes.&quot; Those who sat in the Westminster Assembly were almost all such as had conformed. In 1640 Henderson, Baillie, Blair, and Gillespie came with the Scottish commission to London, the ministers there having written to the general assembly expressing their desire for the establishment of the Scottish system. They at once set themselves to turn the current of Puritan ism into the Presbyterian channel, and to bring about a union on the Presbyterian basis. Their preaching attracted large crowds, and, by a common mistake, they judged of all England from the London ministry, which was largely Presbyterian and which in December 1641 had petitioned for a synod (a desire expressed also in the Grand Remon strance) to include ministers from foreign parts. The parties, however, which were to join issue at the assembly were already clearly recognizing one another, for we hear that &quot; the separatists are like to be of some help to hold up the bishops through their impertinence.&quot; For the views of moderate men on church reform the speeches of Sir E. Deering are important. It is clear that had the bishops been willing to become the allies of a reforming parliament Presbyterianism would not have been seriously discussed. In September 1642 the Long Parliament abolished Episcopacy, the abolition to date from the 5th November Ai in. 1 &quot; 1643 ; the question what form of Puritanism should succeed hi it was that for which the Westminster Assembly was sum moned by parliament on 12th June 1643. The interven ing months were marked by a great increase of sects, of whom all were by nature opposed to the iron domination of Presbyterianism, which in its turn found support in the English ministers of Dutch congregations. It is important at the outset to notice that the assembly was born in Erastianism, the spirit which, from the whole course of English history for several centuries, may be regarded as national. It was a mere council of advice to the parlia ment of England, a creature of the parliament alone. Its members, two from each county, though some counties had but one, were chosen by parliament, and &quot; nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland&quot; is one of the chief points in the ordinance. In 1643 also the Long Parliament, needing Scottish support, and willing to bid high, formed the Solemn League and Covenant. In this the English, struggling for civil liberty, cared only for a political league; moreover, &quot;they were,&quot; says Baillie, &quot;more nor we could consent to, for keeping of a doore open in England to Independencie. Against this we were peremptorie.&quot; To the Scots &quot; its chief aim was the pro pagation of our church discipline to England and Ireland.&quot; The title was a compromise, utterly distasteful to the Scots, who refused to call it anything but the &quot; Covenant.&quot; The number summoned to the assembly was 151, 10 being lords, 20 members of the House of Commons, 121 ministers. About one -half attended regularly. Besides the Episcopalian clergy, who did not attend, there were four parties (1) moderate Reformers of Presbyterian tem per, (2) Presbyterians of Scottish views, (3) Erastians, and (4) Independents. At the request of the parliament six Scottish commissioners, without a vote, of whom five (the sixth was Maitland, afterwards the celebrated duke of Lauderdale) were informed with the intensest spirit of Scottish Presbyterianism, attended the assembly. To them their mission was a holy one, being no less than &quot; to estab lish a new platform of worship and discipline for this people for all time to come.&quot; That this was to be Presbyterian Avas the one thought that possessed their minds, at first with eager hope, changing to apprehension and then to disappointment so bitter that it broke the heart of Alex ander Henderson and made Baillie bewail the distance of the Scotch army. They struggled with pathetic earnestness against influences whose strength they had not realized, the hated sentiment of Erastianism and the still more hated sentiment of Independency. The first of these was chiefly in the background in parliament, where it did not express itself fully until late in the proceedings ; within the assem bly it was consummately represented by Lightfoot, Cole- man, and Selden, who held that &quot;parliament is the church.&quot; The Independents, numbering only ten or eleven in all, their principal representative being Nye, were also men of great ability and clear views, who knew that they could depend on the support of the party led by Cromwell. The assembly began in September by considering what to substitute for the Thirty-nine Articles. On 1 2th October, however, in deference to Scottish pressure, the parliament instructed them to take up at once the questions of church government and a liturgy. Church officers were first dis cussed. The Independents disputed every inch of ground : &quot;to the uttermost of their power they have studied pro crastination of all things, finding that by tyme they have gained.&quot; The long discussion which they forced on the question of the identity of pastor and doctor (in which, holding the offices to be distinct, and that every congrega tion ought to have both, they were opposed both by the Scots on the latter and by the Anglicans on the former ground) was but one example of their skill in obstruction. The grand battle, however, began on 22d November over the ruling eldership the essence of the &quot;Scots disci pline, &quot; against which Independents and Erastians alike did their best. All were willing to admit elders &quot;in a prudential way,&quot; i.e., as exftedient, but &quot;sundry of the ablest were flat against the institution of any such offices by divine right,&quot; and the Independents kept them &quot;in a pitiful labyrinth these twelve days.&quot; In the end a com promise was effected, grievous to the Scots, by which it was merely declared &quot;agreeable to, and warranted by, the word of God, that some others besides the ministers of the word should join in the government of the church.&quot; An attempt further to define their office failed. By the end of the year the Scots became anxious: &quot;as yet a presbyterie to this people is conceaved to be a strange