endurance of hardship, and disciplined by their position and the scenes through which they had passed to force of thought, character, and speech, they were generally more than a match for their opponents. Unhappily, the reports of the discussions in which they took so prominent a part are chiefly from the pens of antagonists; but even from these, it is not difficult to arrive at the above conclusion. Baillie writes of them as having "plenty of learning, wit, and eloquence, and above all, boldness and stiffness to make it out;" as astonishing him by their "great learning, quickness, and eloquence, together with their great courtesy and discretion in speaking;" as "debating all things which came within twenty miles of their quarters," and being ready with "replies, ever quick and high, at will;" and worst of all, as regarding "nothing at all, what all the reformed or all the world say, if their sayings be not backed with convincing scripture or reason. All human testimonies they declaim against as a popish argument."*

Indeed it would appear, if we may judge from the testimony of this writer-a sufficient authority, seeing that he was both a leader and representative of the party-that the presbyterians had more than a misgiving, as to their ability to argue down Independency and the Independents. A kind of panic fear seized them, whenever they approached the great question. From time to time they seek to stave it off, although afterwards unjustly blaming the Indepen

* Baillie's Letters, passim. See Edwards, also, to the same effect. "The authority of your names, holding their opinionshaving the reputation of scholars, and of excellent preacherswhereby you are cried up of many, and so much followed." tapologia, p. 235.

An

dents for the delay. They confess that "many things that come to be handled in the assembly are new to us all, and obscure." They look to the foreign churches of their own order in Zealand, Holland, France, and Switzerland, for help. They write to them secretly, with directions to cry down Independency in their letters to the assembly; alternately coaxing and threatening the tardy, and returning huge thanks to those that comply. The letter of the Wallachrian churches comes "wonderfully opportunely," says Ballie, who had procured it through his cousin Spang. "It has much vexed the minds of these men," he adds, referring to the Independents, who, shrewd as they were, had no suspicion of the cunning bye-play of their opponents. "And yet we expect from the synod of Zealand now sitting, more water to be put in their wine." But even this fails. The Independents are still a terror to them-more than they are willing to confess any where but amongst themselves. They have only one hope left, and that is in their Scotch army. Speaking of the debate on the eldership, Baillie writes: "This is a point of high consequence; and upon no other we expect so great difficulty, except alone on Independency, wherewith we purpose not to meddle in haste, till it please God to advance our army, which we expect will much assist our arguments." Again, referring to some delay in bringing on the discussion of the dependency of particular congregations on the apostles, he writes: "We indeed did not much care for delays, till the breath of our army might blow upon us some more favour and strength!"

Such is the testimony of Ballie, as to the compara

* Baillie's Letters, passim. Multitudes of passages might be added of the same kind.

*

tive moral strength of the two parties. Turning to Lightfoot, the opinion advanced above is confirmed by his report of the debates and other acts of the assembly. His notes betray strong prejudice against the Independents, sometimes expressed, but more frequently evinced by the manner in which their arguments are recorded, as contrasted with those of their opponents; yet even from these imperfect and partial memoranda, it is evident with what breadth and force, and often, it must be confessed, pertinacity of reasoning, they maintained their views, not only against such men as Henderson, Gillespie, and Marshall, but Gattaker and Selden. Goodwin and Nye in particular, appear to have been a match on all points for the opponents of either side."+

High, however, as was the character of the dissenting minority, more especially of "the five," they did not, on entering the assembly, represent the Independency of the country at large, neither were their principles and practices altogether such as are advocated by the Independents of a later day. The following particulars are necessary to vindicate their consistency, and to correct some of the erroneous statements published in recent times respecting this portion of our national history.

The "apologists," on their return from Holland, brought back with them the ecclesiastical opinions disseminated by Robinson, Ames, and Ainsworth, modified in some respects by those of Johnson. * Lightfoot was an Erastian, with episcopalian leanings. same may be said of Selden and Coleman.

The

† After all, the documents in which the Independents justified their own dissent from the majority of the assembly, are their best vindication before the world and all time.

See back, vol. iii. p. 233, 234.

They disclaimed the name and opinions of the Brownists and anabaptists, and considered it a stigma to be designated Independents. They were opposed to the very idea of a national church. On this point their views accorded with those of Henry Burton, given in a former chapter.* They abhorred prelacy, as the source of all the evils that had afflicted the nation. They were not episcopalians, but regarded the bishops and presbyters of apostolic times as identical officers. They were not presbyterians, in the conventional sense of the term; and saw no authority in scripture for government by classes, presbyteries, and synods. They were in fact Congregational Independents, and held that every local church was complete in itself for all the purposes of government and discipline. At the same time, they were in favor of associations of churches thus self-governed, for purposes of mutual counsel and friendly confederation. They also held, at this time, what Smyth termed the doctrine of a "tri-formed presbytery," or of a triple eldership, composed of pastor, teacher, and ruling elders, in every local church; and instead of giving the church, in the body of its assembled members, sole power to determine upon all matters affecting it, regarded the pastor, teacher, and ruling elders, as an executive government in the name of the church, amenable to it, and subject to its revision. In this latter point, they differed from some churches of their order then in existence, and followed the middle course between Brownism popular government, and Johnsonism, or government by a congregational eldership.‡

* See back, vol. iii. pp. 237, 238.

+ Ibid. p. 25.

or

This was the course recommended by Robinson in the Amster

The chief error of these men respected the third principle of Independency. They never advocated the broad doctrine of separation between church and state. Had they done so, their names would not have been found in the roll of the Westminster Assembly. They conceded to the civil power rights which never legitimately belonged to it. They would have allowed the parliament to send the gospel to the heathen, and to provide a gospel ministry for England. They did not consider their churches exempt from "giving account to, or being censurable by," the civil magistrate. They thought that the magistrate might interpose his authority to "back the sentence" of churches refusing communion with "churches miscarrying." And referring to the ordinance of parliament convening the assembly of divines, they speak of it as "a way of God, wisely assumed by the prudence of the state," and express their willingness, as members of the assembly, to yield as far as "light and conscience" would permit, to the decision of the body, respecting questions of discipline.

Such were the actual principles of "the five" on entering the Westminster Assembly. They were Congregational Independents of the New England order, and, in respect to the great principles of civil and religious liberty, were behind many who had no summons to attend the meetings of the convention.

A reference to some of the transactions of the assembly will confirm this view.

dam dispute. See back, vol. iii. p. 21.

For all the particulars

stated above, see the "Apologetical Narration," published by "the five," in 1643. The object of this publication was to set the exiles right with the parliament. It created much excitement at the time, and occasioned many replies.