they become both the tools and the victims of diplomatic craft, and promote their own ruin. A Church totally disjoined from the State, and even incapable of junction with it, is not more, perhaps it is less, free from the dangers of political contamination and injury, than one already established, or treating about the terms of an establishment. Such was the fate of the Independents two hundred years ago, equally with that of the Presbyterians; and the Dissenters of both England and Scotland of the present day may admit, that they have received nothing but injury from their political connections, while a Church holding the Establishment principle, but maintaining spiritual freedom, will have to encounter the hostility of all political parties. If ever a thorough and cordial union of evangelical Christians be formed, it must be kept perfectly free from the perverting influence of secular considerations,— and especially from the intrigues of worldly politicians. Christian Churches will find it possible to agree exactly in proportion as they are pure and spiritual; and where that is not the case, any agreement will be but a deceitful truce or an armed neutrality,-incapable of producing a lasting peace, and liable at any moment to be changed into keen and implacable hostility.

CHAPTER VI.

THE ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY, 1645-6.

Erastians in the Assembly and in Parliament-Theories held by them-Beginning of the Controversy-Excommunication-Selden's Argument-Answered by Gillespie-Discussion on the Doctrinal Part of the Directory for Ordination-Whitelocke's Argument-Firmness and Triumph of the Assembly-Debate in Parliament on the subject of the Jus Divinum-Whitelocke-Suspending from the SacramentDebate in Parliament-Selden and Whitelocke-Remarks-Continued Struggle with the Parliament-Ordinance on Suspending from Communion, and Erastian element in it-Firm Conduct of the Assembly and the City Ministers-Ordinance for the Election of Ruling Elders and the Erection of Presbyteries, and Erastian element in it-Firm Conduct of the Assembly and the City Ministers-Interposition of the Scottish Commissioners of Parliament-Haughty Conduct of the English Parliament-Boldness of the AssemblyQuestions respecting the Jus Divinum-Main Proposition of the Assembly's Answer Destructive of the Erastian Principle-General Answer-Change in the Temper of Parliament, and One Point yielded to the Assembly.

THERE were in the Westminster Assembly, as has been already stated, three parties, the Presbyterians, the Independents, and the Erastians. In the preceding chapter our attention has been almost solely occupied with the Independent controversy; both because it actually occurred first in order of time, and because it seemed expedient to complete a general view of it before entering upon the consideration of Erastianism, although some discussions on that subject were intermingled with what more strictly related to the prior matter of debate. And in order to obtain a full view of the Erastian controversy, we must revert a

little to its beginnings, some of which occurred at an early stage of the Assembly's deliberations, although the main struggle with the Erastians took place after that with the Independents had virtually terminated, so far at least as the Assembly was concerned.

It was somewhat ominous of evil, that the very calling of the Assembly was solely the deed of the civil power, and that their deliberations were limited to such matters as should be proposed to them by the Parliament. Yet, in the universal confusion into which both Church and State had been cast, this was unavoidable, and might not have led to any evil consequences, had the civil government been satisfied with the due exercise of their own powers in calling forth and putting into operation the remedial energies of the Church in its own sacred province. Nor was it strange, that men who had so recently suffered so much from prelatic tyranny should regard with alarm all ecclesiastical power whatever, and by the strength of a violent revulsion and rebound, should spring to the opposite conclusion, that there ought to be no power or jurisdiction, except that of the civil magistrate. Such appears to have been the predominant state of mind and feeling among the members of the Long Parliament in general, together with the peculiar opinions held by individuals, and caused by their diversities of studies or professional pursuits. "Most of the lawyers," says Baillie, "are strong Erastians, and would have all the Church government depend absolutely upon the Parliament." And of Selden, he says, "This man. is the head of the Erastians; his glory is most in the Jewish learning; he avows everywhere that the Jewish State and Church were all one, and that so in England it must be, that the Parliament is the Church." 1 Lightfoot and Coleman, the only Erastian divines in the Assembly, adopted

1 Baillie, vol. ii. p. 266.

the same line of thought and argument with Selden, and reasoned from the blended polity, as they affirmed it to be, which prevailed among the Jews, in order to maintain that a similar arrangement should exist in Christian States, in which the civil magistrate, being a Christian ought to possess and wield all jurisdiction both civil and ecclesiastical. The mere lawyers, on the other hand, maintained the Erastian theory on the weaker and more casily refuted argument, that unless the civil magistrate possessed all jurisdiction there would arise the intolerable anomaly of an imperium in imperio,-one independent government within another; which in their opinion would be fatal to all good government, and produce inextricable confusion.

The easy connection between this theory and that which had long prevailed in the Church of England, will be readily perceived. The ecclesiastical supremacy of the English monarchs was held to be similar to that which had been held by the Jewish kings, and by the Christian emperors; and it was with some plausibility argued, that these formed authoritative precedents for a Christian sovereign's possession and exercise of jurisdiction within the Church, in all matters of censure, although it gave no authority to interfere in the administration of ordinances, or in the ordination or deposition of ministers, which accordingly were left theoretically free, though practically they were subject to the most absolute control. For the same reason, no opposition was made by the Erastians to the great idea stated by the Westminster Assembly, that "Christ, who is prophet, priest, king, and head of the Church, hath fulness of power, and containeth all other offices by way of eminency in himself;" because they were prepared to hold, that in a Christian state, Christ had delegated the power of jurisdic tion to the Christian civil magistrate, defending that opinion by the analogy of the Jewish state and kings. The kind

of arguments brought forward by them in support of this theory, and the counter arguments by which these were met, we must now proceed to state; which we shall endeavour to do with all possible impartiality.

It will be evident to every intelligent reader, that the ground taken by the learned and able Erastians of that period, while it was one of very considerable plausibility, led them to assail directly that element of Church government which involves the exercise of discipline, or Church censure; because, since the only authority which a Church can possess is over the conscience, the only way in which it can have, and exercise jurisdiction, is by spiritual censures directly affecting the conscience of delinquents; so that if a Church cannot inflict censures, it cannot possibly have a distinct and independent government of its own. The Erastians of the Parliament were aware that it would be absurd for them to call themselves a Church, in the strict sense of that term, and, consequently, that it would be absurd to pretend that they could themselves admit and ordain ministers, a matter which manifestly belongs to the function of Church-officers; but they perceived that they might more plausibly and successfully assail the power of inflicting censures, and thereby overthrow Church government, on the ground that all jurisdiction belonged to the civil magistrate, even ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in Christian States, though they admitted that it might properly be held and exercised by the Church under a heathen govern

ment.

The first intimation of the controversy occurred on the 8th of January 1644, when the second committee gave in a report concerning the work of pastors, to the following effect:- "Pastors and teachers have power to inquire and judge who are fit to be admitted to the sacraments, or kept from them; and also who are to be excommunicated or