The Naseby triumph was won, not by the Scotch army, or by the English
Presbyterian generals, but chiefly by Cromwell and his Independent
Ironsides. They sustained the hottest brunt of the battle, their
charges bore down the brilliant cavaliers; and they, therefore,
claimed the greenest laurels reaped on that memorable field. They had
become the sworn opponents of the men who were so busy in laying the
corner-stones of the new ecclesiastical establishment. Jealousy of
Presbyterian power was an influence which, combined with a disapproval
of the mode of carrying on the war, produced the self-denying
ordinance, by which certain officers of that persuasion were removed
from command. Not that Cromwell and others had any great distaste
for Presbyterianism considered in itself, since in doctrinal tenets
and religious feeling they agreed with the Genevan school; but with
the exclusiveness and intolerance of its ecclesiastical polity they
were at issue: and they were determined that, while they had tongues
to speak and hands to fight, they would not allow a Presbyterian any
more than an Episcopal Church to trample upon the liberties of other
denominations. They had fought for religious freedom as their own
right, and were prepared to concede it, with certain limitations,
to their brethren; nor would they now, in the hour of their success,
surrender the prize for which they had fought and bled. As the Naseby
heroes assumed an attitude of resolute opposition to the Presbyterians,
the effect soon became visible at Westminster.
[Sidenote: _Unpopularity of the Scotch Army._]
New elections contributed to alter the relative position of these
parties. New writs were issued by the Speaker of the House of Commons,
in August, to fill up vacant seats. Before the end of the year, one
hundred and forty-six fresh members took the oath; and within twelve
months eighty-nine more did the same, amongst whom were Blake, Ludlow,
Algernon Sidney, Ireton, Skippon, Massey, and Hutchinson.
[Sidenote: 1645.]
There was another cause at work in the same direction. The Scotch army
had been the main pillar of Presbyterian hope. In almost every letter
which the indefatigable Robert Baillie wrote home to his friends this
fact appears. No doubt, in the simplicity of his heart, and without any
consciousness of inconsistency, he could stand up in any Edinburgh or
London pulpit and take for his text, "The weapons of our warfare are
not carnal;" and yet, no man was more filled with the idea that the
success of Presbyterianism in England depended upon Scotch soldiers.
To take one instance from a sheaf of quotations. "If by any means we
would get these our regiments, which are called near thirty, to sixteen
thousand marching men, by the blessing of God, in a short time we might
ruin both the malignant party and the sectaries. The only strength
of both these is the weakness of our army. The strength, motion, and
success of that army, in the opinion of all here, is their certain and
quick ruin.... It's our only desire to have the favour of God, and
to hear of the speedy march of our army."[550] But at the time of
which we now speak the Scotch soldiers had become very unpopular. Our
laborious correspondent expostulates with the authorities of his own
country, not only on the dilatoriness of their military movements, but
on the demoralized condition of their troops; so that, as he said, if
justice were not done "on unclean, drunken, blasphemous, plundering
officers," Scotland would "stink in the nose" of England. He was
frightened to hear what many told him of ravishers, blasphemers, and
Sabbath-breakers, being left unpunished. No one could be more zealous
for the discipline of the forces than he who thus discloses his bad
opinion of their character and his fear of the ruinous consequences.
Letters in the State Paper Office indicate what ground there was
for Baillie's apprehensions. These letters complain of the lawless
behaviour of Major Blair's men, stationed in Derbyshire, who broke open
houses, beat women, and robbed the carriers as they came to Winkworth
market. And so it happened, that while the Scotch Presbyterian army,
which was meant to be England's saviour, was sinking into had repute,
Cromwell's Independents were being praised up to the very skies.[551]
The case stood thus. The Scotch and most of the Presbyterians of the
Westminster Assembly were, on the one side, for putting down the sects,
and setting up an ecclesiastical rule which should have government
support without government direction, and exclude from toleration
systems different from their own; and on the other side were the
army, the Erastians, and the Independents, who, differing from each
other in religious opinion and character, were politically united,
forming an irresistible phalanx, which exhibited as its watchwords
such mottoes as these: "State Control over a State Church;" "For other
Churches full Toleration." Two questions had to be decided. Should not
Presbyterianism, established by the civil power, be subject to the
interference of that power? Should not freedom of worship and polity be
allowed to sects dissenting from the Establishment? There was also a
third--Was Presbyterianism of Divine right?
[Sidenote: _The Power of the Keys._]
[Sidenote: 1645.]
Let us see how the three were handled.
I. The question touching "the Power of the Keys" was debated in the
Assembly, and then in the House of Commons. According to Presbyterian
doctrine, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were committed to the
ruling officers of the Church. They had power to call before them any
member, to enquire into his spiritual state, and to suspend him from
the Lord's Supper, if found unworthy of communion. Church censures,
however, while independent of the magistrates' authority as to their
origin, were, in their execution, if necessary, to be supported by the
magistrates' assistance. The Independents agreed with the Presbyterians
thus far, that the most careful order ought to be maintained in the
Church of Christ; but the Independents contended that discipline was a
duty pertaining to the congregation at large, and that no individual
should be set aside, or cut off from Christian privileges, except by the
votes of the community. At the same time, they excluded all magisterial
interference, and could not accept of any enforcement of their own
decisions by legal penalties. The Erastians took a very different
view, and believed that communion ought to be perfectly open, and that
it should be left to every man's conscience to decide respecting his
own fitness for receiving the Lord's Supper. Crimes only, they said,
deserved social penalties, and these were to be adjudged by civil
tribunals. The Presbyterians carried their own point in the Westminster
Assembly. The keys, contrary to the Independent idea, were to be in the
hands of Church officers, and not to be held by the congregation at
large. The keys, contrary to Erastian notions, were to be exclusively
under spiritual, not at all under civil control.
When this question passed from the Assembly to the Commons, and the
time came for deciding the matter, the conclusion of the Assembly
was annulled. The House determined, that if any person found himself
aggrieved by the proceedings of a Presbytery, he might not only appeal
to a superior Church tribunal, but he might bring his case for final
adjudication before the High Court of Parliament. Criminal charges were
reserved entirely for the magistrates' decision, whose certificate was
necessary for the suspension of offenders. A committee of Lords and
Commons also had vested in them a discretionary power to adjudge any
cases of scandal unspecified in the rules for suspension which had been
drawn up by the Assembly.[552]
[Sidenote: _The Power of the Keys._]
The Erastians, who were at this time the leaders of the political
Independent party in the House of Commons, thus defeated their
opponents. By fixing the control of ecclesiastical judicature in
the civil magistracy and in Parliament, they established their own
distinctive principle, which was utterly subversive of the polity
advocated by the Presbyterians. The Church was altogether degraded from
its position as a kingdom not of this world; and also discipline became
so fettered, that in many cases its exercise proved to be impossible.
The rules prepared by the Assembly, and sanctioned by the Commons,
appeared sufficiently formidable to fence the Lord's table against the
approach of improper communicants; yet the very minute specification of
sundry offences, as in all cases of precise canon law, really presented
an obstacle in the way of discipline respecting unspecified offences
against morality and religion. All such minute rules are inherently
vicious, and are singularly out of harmony with New Testament methods
of legislation. Moreover, the interference of magistrates and of
senatorial committees were likely to render these rules inoperative;
and in cases which the rules did not reach, such interference was not
calculated to produce ecclesiastical purity.
One object of the Presbyterians was the establishment of a Church of
incorrupt religion and of undefiled morality. The Puritan Presbyter
resembled the Anglican Archbishop as an apostle of uniformity; but
the former thought much more of moral reformation, and much less of
ritual worship, than the latter. The Church discipline of Presbyterian
courts came nearer to the Church discipline of Archdiaconal ones than
many people suppose; but what is truly moral and religious was raised
by Presbyterians above what is ceremonial in a measure far beyond the
conception of Romanists or Anglo-Catholics. The old ecclesiastical
courts were overturned, many cases of immorality were no longer subject
to jurisdiction; and Presbyterians, who, like Anglicans, treated the
nation as a Church, aimed by their own system to supply what they
considered a great defect in the moral government of the people.
[Sidenote: 1645.]
The English Presbyterians essayed to walk in the path of their Scotch
brethren; and the general conviction of the latter as to the divinity
of that system must be borne in mind. Amongst an equal number of
persons, where one man in England believed prelacy to be a divine
institution, a dozen might be found in Scotland, who were not only
assured that their Church rested upon the foundation of apostles and
prophets, but were resolved also, in its defence, to go to prison,
to the gallows, or to the stake. Church power bore in their eyes the
stamp of Heaven, and owed nothing to Acts and Ordinances of Parliament.
In Scotland, the Reformation had not been, as in England, mainly the
revolt of the laity against the clergy. The clergy had led the way,
like a grand prophet choir, they had headed the host. They had been
in the van as the nation marched out of Egypt; and Moses did not more
rejoice over Pharaoh than John Knox had done over the Man of Sin. Some
will say there was plenty of fanaticism in the Reformation on the
other side the Tweed; but it must be admitted that there was certainly
no time-serving. Braver men never trod God's earth; and the sons now
brought some of their fathers' fire over the border.
But, however admirable the purpose of the Presbyterians might be, the
means employed for its accomplishment were inappropriate, dangerous,
and unjust. They were _inappropriate_, because purity of discipline
has ever been found impossible in a State establishment, whether it
be the superior, the ally, or the subordinate of the civil power; for
a Church which comprehends, or is meant to comprehend, a whole nation
within its pale, must necessarily be open to great laxity of communion.
The means, too, were _dangerous_, because to vest the power of
discipline, entailing civil consequences, in a body of local officers,
was to place the social position and interests of individuals at the
mercy of a few in their own parish, who possibly might be induced
by unworthy motives to give trouble and annoyance. And the means
also were _unjust_, because the penal enforcement of uniformity in
doctrine, worship, and polity, contravened the rights of conscience,
and deprived all Nonconformists of religious liberty. It was not on
the side of opposition to strict discipline and pure fellowship that
religious Independents had any sympathy with the Erastians in their
anti-Presbyterian warfare. Most earnestly did the former inculcate
the importance of these very things, and, for the sake of them, were
prepared to sacrifice many temporal advantages. What they objected
to was, first, the secular power which the new Church wished to
manage and employ for its own purposes; and secondly, the intolerance
towards rival sects with which the supremacy of that Church would be
connected. The Independents maintained, what wise and thoughtful men,
though widely removed from Erastian tendencies, have ever since done,
that if there be an Establishment at all, it is far better that the
State should be mistress of the Church than that the Church should be
mistress of the State. No doubt, the political alliance between the
Erastian and the Independent damaged somewhat the apparent consistency
of the latter; but in this respect, as to what he suffered, he only
shared in the common fate of religious persons when entering into
political combinations; and as to what he did, he only acted like many
individuals since of eminent conscientiousness; for in fact he was glad
of help, from whatever quarter it might come, in his endeavours to
prevent despotism and to resist intolerance.
[Sidenote: _Toleration._]
[Sidenote: 1645.]
II. The question of the keys, if it did not exactly involve, certainly
approached the question of _toleration_. At any rate, Church
censures, when left to the presbytery of a parish, gave little hope
of religious liberty being conceded to the parishioners. But, beyond
mere implication and probable contingency, there existed the fact that
the Presbyterian regarded the suppression of opinions and usages
contrary to his own as an inexorable obligation. In addition to the
legal enactment of discipline, he asked power to punish sectaries.
The ministers were ardent in endeavouring to prove the magistrates'
duty to put down heresy and schism. It formed the theme of numerous
sermons preached in St. Margaret's to the House of Commons. The City
Divines, in their weekly meetings at Sion College, debated upon the
best method of securing that end. The zealots of the party would, if
possible, have moved the Corporation of London to throw its influence
into their scale; but, just then, certain political complications
checked the movement, and deep lamentations over the faithless
citizens immediately ensued. So far did some of the Londoners go in
this kind of backsliding, that they even spoke of the Assembly being
dissolved[553]--an extreme measure, which the Lords Say and Wharton,
in their jealousy of ecclesiastical encroachments upon the liberties
of the people, had also proposed in the Upper House.[554] At the
same period, books and pamphlets were written by Prynne and others,
to establish the claims of the new ecclesiastical polity, and the
righteousness of treating all sectaries as obstinate offenders.[555]
One of their advocates, in the heat of his eloquence, declared,
"that to let men serve God according to the persuasion of their
own consciences is to cast out one devil, that seven worse might
enter."[556] The Scotch were too much interested in the subject, and
took too prominent a part in the settlement of ecclesiastical affairs
in England, to be silent at this crisis.[557] But the style of the
letter which they sent to Parliament ruffled the tempers of many of
the members, though it received at the time a courteous and dignified
notice; but two months afterwards, when another address of a similar
character, yet less offensive in style, came from the same quarter, and
was published without authority, the Houses voted the "papers false and
scandalous, and, as such, to be burnt by the hand of the hangman."[558]
[Sidenote: _Toleration._]
[Sidenote: 1645.]
The Presbyterian advocates, as they insisted upon the excision of
heresy and schism by the sword of the State, never attempted to do
so on grounds of political expediency with the idea, that by hunting
out heresy and schism they would be getting at serpents of treason
hidden underneath. Very different were the grounds of their policy
from some selected by the Anglican Church at the Restoration. Fidelity
to Christ's crown--pure zeal for His covenant--were put forth, and
sincerely felt in a number of cases, as the main, if not the sole,
motive of the Presbyterian crusade against hated sects. Perhaps
sometimes Independents and Presbyterians did not clearly understand
one another. The former might, at times, seem to countenance the moral
toleration of error and sin, and to be thinking more of liberty than of
truth. On the other hand, the Presbyterian polemic might sometimes only
intend to pour out his fiery wrath upon sympathy with falsehood and
evil when he denounced toleration; but certainly this was not always
the case, and it may be added that, generally, he prized truth much
more than liberty. Neither side seemed to discern that the defence of
freedom in religion must rest simply on the _civil right_ of every
man to pursue his own course, to declare his own opinions, and to act
according to his own convictions, so long as he does not interfere
with his neighbours who wish to do the same. We are prepared to judge
favourably of the motives of the Presbyterians; but if their motives
in some degree redeem their character, it must be admitted that men
holding the opinions of toleration which many at least of that party
did, though they may act under the influence of the best feelings, are
very dangerous persons to be at the head of public affairs. If, under
the idea that they have a mission from Heaven for the purpose, and
with a desire to promote the glory of God, they set to work to gather
the tares from amidst the wheat, woe be to the culture of the field
altogether, and to the growth even of the good grain. He who perfectly
understood this subject interdicted all such interference, no matter
how pious the intent, and laid down a law which is utterly inconsistent
with all intolerance--"Let both grow together to the harvest." After
His decision on the subject, for any persons, however wise and good in
other respects, to attempt the extermination of error and evil by the
scythe of civil penalties, is sheer fanaticism, whether the endeavour
be made by a Protestant ecclesiastical court or by a Roman Catholic
inquisition.
[Sidenote: _Divine Right of Presbyterianism._]
III. The doctrine of the _Divine right of Presbyterianism_ was bound
up with its scheme of discipline and its principle of intolerance. The
majority of the Westminster Assembly would not rest content with the
establishment of their Church by the simple decree of Parliament. They
required it to be recognized by the State as _of Divine authority_. Not
only did the Presbyterian say that he believed--which was consistent
and proper--that his own system rested upon the teaching of the New
Testament; but he demanded that the highest power in the realm should
say the same, and enforce its peculiarities, as requirements clothed
with a celestial sanction. This doctrine the Independents opposed, on
the ground that they considered their own Church polity to be nearer
the Word of God. The Erastians also opposed it, because they did not
believe in the Divine foundation of any ecclesiastical rule at all.
Both parties alike opposed it on the principle, that if the State chose
to endow a Church, the State must be left to do so on its own terms.
In this way it happened, as it often does in controversy, that parties
proceeding from different and even opposite points, found themselves
at length side by side, in honest and hearty alliance, so far as
related to a resistance of common foe. But it should be borne in mind
that it was not in the character of religionists that Independents and
Erastians formed their combination, but in the character of patriots
and politicians, who were agreed in resisting a body of men whose
success in the advocacy of intolerance they judged would be as inimical
to the temporal welfare as it would be destructive to the religious
liberties of the nation.
[Sidenote: 1645.]
There were debates on the _jus Divinum_ in the Assembly, and sterner
and more important debates on the same subject in the House of Commons.
The five brethren argued from Scripture for Congregationalism against
Presbyterianism; and Whitelocke and Selden employed their learning and
logic to prove that the Bible did not decide the question one way or
the other. At length a crisis came. The Presbyterians of the Assembly,
in concert with their Scotch brethren, complained of the Erastian
clauses in the Parliamentary ordinance for discipline, and asserted
the Divine right of the scheme of government. The House of Commons
declared that the Assembly had no right to complain of the decision
of Parliament, since the Divines had been called together simply to
give advice, and that with giving advice their functions came to an
end. Members spoke of the penalties of a _præmunire_, and held up that
which has been described as the "fatal spell before which spiritual
pretensions sunk exorcised, mysterious as excommunication and no less
terrible in its vagueness."[559] At the same time, they called on the
Assembly to answer certain queries as to the nature and extent of the
_jure Divino_ claim. This was done simply with the view of putting
off a serious collision with the Assembly. But whatever want of
earnestness there might be on the side of Parliament in proposing the
questions, no want of earnestness is seen on the side of the Assembly
in answering them. Yet, when the replies were ready in July, 1646, the
Assembly became afraid of a final rupture, and, under the terror of
a _præmunire_, abstained from publishing what they had prepared. The
Divines of Sion College, however, took up the controversy, and would
have vigorously pursued it, had not Parliament cut short the matter by
peremptorily insisting that the ordinances issued in March should be
obeyed. After relieving their consciences by an explanation of their
views, these reverend persons submitted[560] to the authority which
they found it impossible to resist.
[Sidenote: _Westminster Assembly._]
As we shall not have occasion again to notice the Westminster Assembly,
it is convenient here to conclude its history. No Convocation ever
sat so long. Gathered in the summer of 1643, it pursued its work till
the autumn of 1647, when, the main business of the ecclesiastical
commission being completed, the Scotch members took their leave.
But from that time up to the winter of 1648-9, a few of the Divines
continued to examine ministerial candidates; and afterwards a small
committee met for the same purpose every Thursday morning, even as late
as the spring of 1652. Upon the breaking-up of the Long Parliament
by Oliver Cromwell, this appendage silently disappeared without any
formal dissolution. Neither before nor since did any convocation of
the Church in England go over so much ground, and accomplish so much
work. In this respect it rivals the Council of Trent. The whole range
of dogmatic divinity, together with ecclesiastical polemics, and
devotional formularies, came under discussion. Notice has been taken
of the partial revision of the Thirty-nine Articles, of the Directory
for worship, and of the humble advice for the ordination of ministers,
and the settling of Presbyterian government. It is almost needless to
say that the Westminster Divines prepared a confession of faith. A
committee, including Reynolds, afterwards Bishop of Norwich, drew up
this document. They divided themselves into sections, each taking a
specific topic. When a chapter had been fully prepared it was submitted
to the Assembly, and then again subjected to minute examination,
sentence by sentence, and word by word. There were long and tough
debates on the doctrine of election. Neal says, "All the Divines were
in the anti-Arminian scheme, yet some had a greater latitude than
others. I find in my MS. the dissent of several members against some
expressions relating to reprobation, to the imputation of the active
as well as passive obedience of Christ, and to several passages in
the chapters of liberty of conscience and Church discipline; but the
confession, as far as it related to articles of faith, passed the
Assembly and Parliament by a very great majority."[561]
[Sidenote: 1643-52.]
The confession consists of thirty-three chapters--the first on the
Holy Scriptures, the last on the final judgment. The doctrines of
Calvinism are sharply defined in an order and in a form which many
theologians of the present day, substantially Calvinistic, cannot
adopt. Certain chapters, interspersed with the rest--the twentieth, on
Christian liberty and liberty of conscience, the thirtieth, on Church
censures, and the thirty-first, on synods and councils--plainly exhibit
the intolerance of the times in connection with the principles of
Presbyterian government. As everything which the Assembly did had to be
submitted to Parliament for its sanction, this theological manifesto
came under the consideration of that supreme court. The doctrinal
portions were ratified by the two Houses, but the particulars as to
discipline were "recommitted;" which, under the circumstances, though
it did not amount to a formal, yet proved a virtual rejection.[562]
[Sidenote: _Westminster Assembly._]
Two catechisms, the longer and the shorter, were also prepared at
Westminster,--the last of which, with its scripture proofs, was much
more familiar to the children of Nonconformists in past generations
than in the present. The Annotations which bear the name of the
Assembly were, in fact, the production of a committee appointed by
Parliament, including learned men who never belonged to the Assembly
at all. The Assembly also undertook the revision of psalmody, which
has obtained less notice than it deserves. Congregations were getting
tired of Sternhold and Hopkins; consequently Parliament recommended
there should be a new version. One, by Mr. Rouse, found favour with the
Commons, and was submitted to the consideration of the Divines, who,
after a careful perusal and some emendations, pronounced it "profitable
to the Church, should it be publicly sung." But Mr. Rouse had a rival
in Mr. Barton, who likewise had prepared a new psalter. He petitioned
the Lords in favour of his own work, and obtained their patronage. They
passed a resolution, enquiring of the Divines why Mr. Barton's book
might not be used as well as others? The Lower House soon afterwards
decided that Mr. Rouse's psalms and no others should be sung in all
churches and chapels within the kingdom of England, the dominion of
Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. The Assembly, in answer to
the queries of the House of Lords, replied that, if liberty should
be given to people to sing whatever translation they liked, several
different books would be used even in one and the same congregation
at the same time, "which would be a great distraction and hindrance
to edification." This was such an extraordinary contingency, that
to contemplate it as at all probable, indicated the existence of an
astonishing amount of disunion and obstinacy. It is a significant fact
that, whilst in the Episcopal Church of England, after the imposition
of the Prayer Book, the choice of a form of psalmody was left to the
discretion of the clergy and their congregations, the Presbyterians,
when in power, would not allow such liberty, but endeavoured to secure
uniformity in the worship of praise, such as in the worship of prayer
they did not even permit.[563]
[Sidenote: 1643-52.]
The Westminster Assembly has seldom been treated with justice. By
Episcopal Churchmen, too generally, it is depreciated; and by some
it is dismissed with a few words of unconcealed contempt. Scotch
Presbyterians have extravagantly extolled it; and Neal, the Independent
historian of Puritanism is accused of damning it with faint praise.
Clarendon speaks of the Assembly in words of scorn; and Walker, still
more deeply prejudiced, writes against it with wearisome vituperation.
Milton, who had incurred the censure of the Divines by his doctrine
of divorce, could not be expected to pronounce an equitable judgment
on their merits; and we do not wonder at the resentment which burns
against his censurers through certain magnificently sonorous sentences
in the third book of his History of England.[564] Baxter's words have
been often quoted on this subject, and though not free from partiality,
they deserve more than those of any other man to be repeated: "The
Divines, there congregate, were men of eminent learning and godliness,
and ministerial abilities and fidelity; and being not worthy to be one
of them myself, I may the more freely speak that truth which I know,
even in the face of malice and envy, that, as far as I am able to
judge by the information of all history of that kind, and by any other
evidences left us, the Christian world, since the days of the apostles,
had never a synod of more excellent Divines (taking one thing with
another) than this synod and the synod of Dort were."[565]
[Sidenote: _Westminster Assembly._]
[Sidenote: 1643-52.]
This is high praise; but it comes nearer to the truth than the
condemnatory verdicts pronounced by some others. The godliness of the
men is proved by the spirit of their writings, and by the history of
their lives. Their talents and attainments even Milton does not attempt
to deny. No one would think of comparing any of them with Jeremy Taylor
in point of eloquence; and in breadth of sacred learning, in a certain
skilful mastery of knowledge, and in the majesty and grace of polemical
argument, the best were not equal to Hammond and Pearson. Cosin would
surpass them all in some branches of study, which they would account
useless. Certainly, none of them had the sagacious quaintness of Bishop
Hall, or the inexhaustible wit of Thomas Fuller; but quaintness and
wit are qualities not needed in theological conferences. Even superior
eloquence and large accomplishments may, in such case, be dispensed
with. The Westminster Divines had learning--scriptural, patristic,
scholastical, and modern--enough, and to spare; all solid, substantial,
and ready for use.[566] Lightfoot and Selden were of ponderous but not
unwieldy erudition; and Arrowsmith and Calamy, though less known to
literary fame, were ripe and ready scholars. Caryl and Greenhill had
abundance of knowledge; Dr. Goodwin was, in many respects, the greatest
Divine amongst them all. Moreover, in the perception and advocacy of
what is most characteristic and fundamental in the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, they were, as a body, considerably in advance of some who could
put in a claim to equal, and perhaps higher scholarship. They had a
clear, firm grasp of evangelical truths. The main defect and the chief
reproach of the Assembly consisted in the narrowness and severity of
their Calvinism, and in the fierce and persistent spirit of intolerance
manifested by the majority.
[Illustration]