Spencer, who brought a bundle of books, or rather copies of one book, directed to the assembly from Amsterdam, from one of the Separation, in which he pleadeth, that we are bound in conscience to tolerate all sects. I got Mr. Byfield to come to look upon them, and Mr. Seaman, and Dr. Burgess, and we put the books into Mr. Byfield's hands, and enjoined the man to come to-morrow, and he shall know the mind of the assembly. . After this, the business from Amsterdam was called to be read; and it was very much opposed by the Independent party; and it cost a great deal of agitation and a little hot; and after all it was not read."

This happened on the 29th of December, 1643; and it seems undeniable that up to this time at least, the assembly Independents were a long way behind many of their party, and by no means favourable to liberty of conscience, properly so called. Other views, however, have been entertained on this subject, and published with a degree of enthusiasm fully warranted, if those views are correct.

It is asserted that in 1644, in the debate on the divine right of presbyterianism, Philip Nye advocated the principle of unlimited toleration, in the following words: "By the command of God, the magistrate is discharged to put the least discourtesy on any man, Turk, Jew, Papist, or Socinian, or any religion whatever, for his religious belief;" that the noble sentiment thus expressed was the great principle of the Independents of the assembly, and became their rallying point, as well as that of the Erastians, from that period. Baillie is referred to in confirmation of this opinion, and his letters are quoted as conveying a *Lightfoot's Journal, Works. xiii. 93.

lively representation of the confusion and contention which such an avowal produced.* It is our duty to show that this statement is without historical foundation.

of the InIt is not

It is true, a remarkable scene was to be witnessed in the Jerusalem chamber, on the 21st of February, 1644, of which Baillie-the Boswell of the presbyterian party has given a graphic account. It is true also that Philip Nye, acting in the name dependents, was the occasion of that scene. true, however, that the cause of provocation was the assertion of the principle of unlimited toleration; but something else, of an altogether different nature. To explain this matter fully, we must go back a little to the earlier stages of the debate.†

On the 9th of the previous January, the third committee reported the subject of ordination for discussion under five heads:-"1. What ordination is. 2. Whether necessarily to be continued. 3. Who to ordain. 4. What persons to be ordained, and how qualified. 5. The manner how." The first and second

The third, however,

points were soon despatched. occasioned much debate. The presbyterians wanted

*Liberty of Conscience Illustrated. By J. W. Massie, D.D. pp. 112, 113, &c.

† Lightfoot, Works, vol. xiii., compared with Baillie. Lightfoot has been strangely overlooked, or very carelessly read by most writers on this period. He is more valuable than Baillie on questions like the present, because he records with great precision every day's discussion in the assembly. Baillie gives only a general statement, sometimes without regard to chronological order; so that the date of his letters is not always a certain guide as to the date of the occurrences he describes. See also Hanbury, iii. 6—31.

For the orderly despatch of business, three committees had been early appointed, to prepare the subjects for discussion.

the answer to be, "The preaching presbyters only to ordain." To this the Independents refused assent, and obtained a committee to state their views on the

whole question of ordination. On the 19th, Philip Nye reported from this committee to the following effect:"1. Ordination, for the substance of it, is the solemnization of an officer's outward call, in which the elders of the church, in the name of Christ, and for the church, do, by a visible sign, design the person, and ratify his separation to his office; with prayer for, and blessing upon, his gifts in the ministration thereof. 2. That the power that gives the formal being to an officer should be derived by Christ's institution from the power that is in elders, as such, on the act of ordination, as yet we find not any where held forth in the word." While this was being discussed, the Earl of Manchester brought an order from the Lords for despatching the business of ordination, in order that certain of the London ministers might be authorized to ordain ministers for the City. On this, the assembly turned aside from the consideration of the objections of the Independents, and endeavoured to make out an extraordinary case of necessity for empowering the London ministers to do as was desired. The Independents resisted this attempt to prejudge the whole question, and with great ability kept up a continual fire of argumentation for many days. "Either," said Bridge, "the ministers of London are a presbytery or no; if they be, then we are to treat of the presbytery; if not, then to debate whether ministers out of a presbytery may ordain." "We conceive," said Nye, in the name of his brethren, "it doth really and de facto set up the presbytery before discussed." By this time the grand committee had

sent in for discussion the question of presbytery itself; and after some debate, in which Lord Saye prevailed on behalf of his party, the case of necessity was set aside until this last question had been decided. Thus the Independents prevented for a season the institution of a London presbytery. In accordance with this decision, the question of presbytery came under discussion on the 5th of February,* in the following terms:-" Divers churches may be under one presbyterial government." Goodwin led on the argument against the proposition, in the name of the Independent committee, which appears to have become a standing one for their party. A long debate ensued. On the 15th, however, their arguments were negatived, and the proposition was about to be discussed in the affirmative, when Bridge proposed another argument against the proposition from Matt. xviii. 1517. "Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him alone if he shall hear thee, then hast thou gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

:

:

The consideration of this argument occupied the assembly many days. Bridge contended that this passage gave every particular congregation, consisting of elders and brethren, entire and full power of jurisdiction within themselves, without power of appeal to any other; and in meeting the objection that an

*Stoughton says April, through following the date of Baillie's letter, instead of Lightfoot's more specific Journal.

offending church should be liable to censure as well as a private person, answered as follows: "1. This is to set a power over a power. 2. This makes as heavy against presbytery; for a presbytery may offend: and so it may rise to a general council to be punished." A deeply interesting discussion ensued, in which Marshall, Vines, Calamy, Goodwin, Rutherford, Selden, and Herle, were the principal speakers.* On the 20th, Philip Nye stood up and made a long speech, the purport of which is given by Baillie, and the topics of which are formally noted in Lightfoot's Journal.

* It may here be mentioned, that Calamy did not agree with the Independents; and that Selden in a long and learned argument, contended that by "the church," was meant the Sanhedrim. Burroughes did not speak at all, until Feb. 22nd, or if he did, there is no record to that effect. The speech which the author of "Liberty of Conscience Illustrated," has put in his mouth just before Nye divided the assembly, was delivered on March 9th, 1646, or more than two years later. Nor is this the only anachronism in that otherwise able lecture, For example, Baxter, Owen, Milton, and Cromwell, are represented as being probably present in the assembly on the day of Nye's declaration. There is no record of Baxter's being in London so early as this. At this time he was in Coventry. Owen, so far from "feeling interested in promoting Independency," was not an Independent till 1645. Milton would have disdained to be present. He had been cited before the Lords for his book on Divorce, at the instigation of the assembly; and one of their number, Mr. Herbert Palmer, had publicly preached against him. Cromwell was in parliament " transiently on the 22nd of January, but at this time was fighting away in Buckinghamshire, and taking ammunition to Gloucester. The reason assigned for the probability of his being present, is singularly inaccurate. "Just at this time," says Dr. Massie, "the self-denying ordinance was in process of administration. Numbers of the leaders of the army were therefore in London, Oliver Cromwell among the rest." The selfdenying ordinance was not proposed till the 9th of the following `December, and was not passed till April 3rd, 1645.