laws have no cognizance. And well did their disciples manifest themselves to be no better principled than their teachers, trusted with committeeships and other gainful offices, upon their commendations for zealous, (and as they sticked not to term them,) godly men; but executing their places like children of the devil, unfaithfully, unjustly, unmercifully, and where not corruptly, stupidly. So that between them the teachers, and these the disciples, there hath not been a more ignominious and mortal wound to faith, to piety, to the work of reformation, nor more cause of blaspheming given to the enemies of God and truth, since the first preaching of reformation."

Such was the opinion of John Milton respecting the merits of the assembly,—an opinion deliberately formed, and published many years after it had ceased to be. Excepting one or two harsh expressions, and bearing in mind that he deals with the proceedings of the body as a whole, we see nothing in this celebrated passage but what may be substantiated by the facts of the case. To characterize it as an effusion of spleen, merely because his "Treatise on Divorce" was harshly dealt with by some of the members of the assembly, is quite beside the mark. Whatever his just resentment of the treatment he received, it is not likely that that great man, of tried and stable virtue in all the eventful scenes through which it was his lot to pass, would have suffered it to prevail so far or so long as is implied in this supposition. The several items of the accusation are so many alleged facts, and the question with the impartial should respect those facts, not the animus supposed to have been the occasion of their being adduced. If the language of Milton is compared with the actual records of the assembly,

it will not be found far from the truth; and there is abundant evidence in the other writings of this sagacious statesman and lover of liberty that, as the character and aims of the assembly became more fully developed, he detected the error that had been committed by parliament in calling it, as well as the unfitness of its members for the responsible duties to which they had been summoned.

It is affirmed, however, that there are good grounds for believing that Milton's enmity to the assembly was personal. "It deserves to be noticed," says Mr. Orme, "that his work on Divorce is dedicated to this very assembly, as well as to the long parliament, both of which he afterwards so severely denounced. In that dedication, he speaks of them as 'a select assembly,'' of so much piety and wisdom,'-' a learned and memorable synod,'-' in which piety, learning, and prudence were housed.'"* The same writer adds, This dedication was written two years after the assembly had met, and when its character must have been well known."

Mr. Orme's authority is deservedly high for general impartiality and accuracy; but in the present instance, his zeal in behalf of the "fair fame of the assembly, has led to a two-fold error. Admitting that the treatise on Divorce is dedicated "To the Parliament of England with the Assembly," the phrases he has culled from that dedication, which extends over several pages, by no means bear the construction which the reader of Mr. Orme's work would necessarily put upon them. Milton does not speak of the assembly as a select assembly, in the sense of their being an elite, or choice body of divines;

*Life and Times of Richard Baxter; vol. i. 89.

but in the sense of their being selected for a particular purpose by parliament. The sentence in which the expression occurs is as follows:-"If it were seriously asked, renowned Parliament, select Assembly! &c." The phrases, "of so much piety and wisdom here assembled," and "I crave it from the piety, the learning, and the prudence which is housed in this place,"—relate not to the assembly, but to the parliament; or, on the most favourable construction, to both. The words, "a learned and memorable synod," are not predicated of the Westminster assembly at all. The entire sentence is,—“To expedite these knots were worthy a learned and memorable synod;' that is, any learned and memorable synod that might be convened for the purpose. Supposing, therefore, that this dedication had been written two years after the assembly had met, no inference could be fairly deduced from it respecting Milton's approval of its character. The truth is, however, that the dedication was written almost immediately after the assembly had been summoned; since the assembly met for the first time on July 1st, 1643, and yet this treatise is referred to as having been before the public some time, in a subsequent work, "The Judgment of Martin Bucer," published by Milton in 1644. It is expressly affirmed in that work, that it was written

* Mr. Stoughton, in p. 149 of his "Spiritual Heroes," makes matters worse, by packing Mr. Orme's selected phrases into one sentence, and attributing that sentence to Milton! A page before this, Mr. S. does Milton similar injustice, by omitting some important words in an alleged quotation. "Milton," he writes, "has aspersed this convention, declaring that it was eminent neither for piety or knowledge." Milton declared no such thing; his words are," nor eminent for either piety or knowledge above others left out." This is a very different thing.

and published in order to convince those who vituperated the former treatise on Divorce on the ground of its containing novel heresy, that Martin Bucer held the same views. From all this, it is evident that there is no foundation for the aspersions in question; and Milton's testimony against the assembly and its proceedings claims to be received as the honest and deliberate testimony of a contemporary.

Turning from this general view of the subject, we now proceed to a more particular notice of the proceedings in which the Independents* had so large a share. The leaders of this party were Dr. Thomas

* A few words here on the name Independent, as it came to be gradually applied to the party. We have seen how first Jacob, then Robinson, employed the word in their writings. After that time, it was used now and then, sometimes by their successors, and sometimes by their opponents, until at last, it became more fixed. In 1621, Paul Baynes applies it to the presbyterians, in p. 13 of his "Diocesan's Trial." "We," he writes, referring to the presbyterians, "affirm that all churches were single congregations, equal and independent, each on other, in regard of subjection.” In 1644, Sidrach Simpson, in his reply to Forbes, speaks of his party as being branded "with the name of Independents-a name which formerly was proper unto those who stood for presbyThomas Welde a New Rathbone, says,

terial government." In the same Bell

England Independent, in his reply to "If the word Independent be rightly taken for one church that is not under the power of another, or in subjection to a presbytery, but as having received power from Christ to govern herself according to his laws, then all accord to it. But if the word be abusively taken, as it is often with the vulgar, for such a society as are neither subject to magistracy, nor regard the counsel of other churches, but are a conceited and self-sufficient people, that stand only upon their own legs, then we have cause to be shy of a word that may render us odious without cause! In the same year, presbyterian Edwards writes in his "Antapologia,"-" The old Separatists could not endure to be called Brownists or Bar

Goodwin, Philip Nye, Jeremiah Burroughes, William Bridge, and Sidrach Simpson, already mentioned as exiles for conscience sake in the days of Laud.* They were generally known afterward as "the five," and the "apologists," on account of their concerted publication of the "Apologetical Narration." The other members of this party in the assembly were William Greenhill, of Stepney, celebrated as the expositor of Ezekiel; William Carter, of London, characterised by Lightfoot as "one that will dissent from everything that crosseth his opinion;" William Green, of Pentecomb; Peter Sterry, of London, a friend of Vane's, and afterwards one of Cromwell's chaplains; and Joseph Caryl, of Lincoln's Inn, best known by his commentary on the book of Job. These were all the "divines" certainly known to have been of the Independent party, in the assembly. In point of numbers, therefore, even if we add the names of Lords Saye and Wharton, and Sir Harry Vane, they were a very small minority. But they were by no means insignificant. Well bred and educated, of great natural gifts, of tried conscientiousness, and inured by the times in which they lived to the rowists; so you will not endure the titles of Schism, Separation, Independency; but you call it the Congregational government,' and the church way,' and 'an entire, full, complete power;' but by no means 'Independent government,'-that will not be endured." He afterwards adds, "Independent government' hath been preached for at Margaret's church in Westminster, and the city of London, in those words; so that I wonder how you dare make such a flourish." From this period, the title of Independent became more fixed, as the name of the party; and eventually, a political, as well as an ecclesiastical idea, became attached to it, because of the liberty sought for by the advocates of the latter.

*See back-Vol. III. p. 187.