mentioned by Mr. Goodwin, will fall upon the civil government, as well as upon the presbyterial; and he proved, that a minister may stand in relation to more congregations than one, and the deacon's office may reach as far as the pastor's; and that he may perform the acts of his office in other congregations than his own; and then retorted the argument. If the deacon may act out of his own congregation, so also may the pastor. And he proved that governing is feeding, as well as preaching, and maintained, that the elders of Jerusalem did teach and preach to all churches indifferently, and exercise their office as occasion required; for proof of which he referred to Acts xv. and xvi. He also showed that more offices than one may meet in one and the same person, as in Christ himself, the Apostles, &c., and then retorted the argument of the Independents thus: "If an elder may have relation to more congregations than one, then may a presbytery; but an elder may, for every elder hath relation to the general visible church, (1 Cor. xii. 28;) otherwise, ordination should be repeated, according as elders changed their places. And baptism is into the general church visible. 2. He argued that he that hath divers assistants, for number and kind, may govern more congregations than one; but the presbytery hath so, ergo, &c. 3. Every minister may do his part, in a particular congregation, and yet do his part in the presbytery; as an alderman may do all that is fit in his ward, and yet do the work of the court of aldermen. 4. The people may have their full interest in a presbyterial government, in the call of their minister; as the people of the land have their full interest in the Parliament, in the choice of its members."

Mr. Goodwin reiterated his argument, and endeavoured to show that presbyterial government was inconsistent with the duties of the pastor to his own people, and of his people to him. The Scriptures never speak of duties to be performed to his own flock and to others; it tells not what they are to do in their own, and what in the Presbyterial as

semblies. He referred to Acts xx. 25, where the Apostle speaks plainly of pastors. Now, if one pastor in this city be fixed to one congregation, and another to another, how could they preach to all the flock? Here he was admonished, that he did but repeat what he had said the day before; and Mr. Vines called upon him to answer distinctly to his refutation of his argument; when a long dispute arose between these

two.

On a succeeding day, the dispute about the jurisdiction of a presbytery over several congregations, was resumed; when Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Burroughs, and Mr. Carter, all attempted to answer the arguments of Mr. Vines and Mr. Marshall. Mr. Vines replied to them all.

Mr. Gillespie next arose, and passed this censure on all the arguments employed by the Independent brethren, "that they do either 'petere principium,' or 'non concludere negatum.""

Mr. Seaman remarked, "that as every particular Christian hath relation to the whole church catholic, yet is he not to do every office of the whole church; so it is with these elders.

Mr. Herle said, "the fundamentum of the relation spoken of is, 1. The assensus of all the congregations to send their elders. 2. The mission. 3. The union in the presbytery; which is the 'formalis ratio' of the whole."

Mr. Marshall spoke again, at great length, and so did divers others.

On the next day the debate was renewed, by Mr. Burroughs, Dr. Hoyle, Dr. Young, Mr. Vines, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Nye, Mr. Seaman, and Mr. Rutherford.

A long critical discussion took place, respecting the order given to the Corinthian church, to excommunicate the incestuous power. 1 Cor. v. 4. The question was, whether the power of excommunication was in the body of the people, or in the elders or rulers. The debate on this point was chiefly between Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Gillespie.

Among their rules of proceeding, they had no one

answering to "the previous question;" but while this matter was under discussion, some of the members were strenuous in their opposition to allowing the Independents to go on indefinitely, in their objections; and insisted, that the matter had been sufficiently discussed. Twice it was put to the vote, whether these brethren should be permitted to go on with their objections, and in both cases the majority was in favour of indulging them.

Another report from the committee, called the FIRST, was now brought in by Mr. Coleman, relative to the same principle, of several churches under one presbytery. They brought forward the following things in favour of a classical presbytery. 1. The church of Jerusalem. 2. The church of Corinth. 3. Of Ephesus. 4. Of Antioch. The instance of Jerusalem having been already exhibited, they proceeded to prove that the church of Corinth consisted of a number of congregations. 1. From the time of Paul's abode there, Acts xviii. 8-10. 2. From the divers meeting places, as Cenchrea, the house of Justus, and of Chloe, Acts xviii. 7, 1 Cor. i. 11. And from the use of the word churches in the plural number, 1 Cor. xiv. 34. 2. From the multitude of pastors, 1 Cor. i. 12, iv. 15, iii. 12. They next affirmed, that these several churches were under one presbytery, 1 Cor. v. 1, 2 Cor. ii. In like manner, they undertook to prove that there were several congregations in the church of Ephesus, from Paul's long continuance there, Acts xx. 31. And from his great success, Acts xix. 18-20. Also, from the number of believers-from the value of the books of those who had practised curious acts, and from the reason which Paul assigns for his long continuance there, 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 9. But especially from the multitude of pastors, Acts xx. 17, 28. And that they were all united under one presbytery, they proved from Rev. ii. 1, 2, where the epistle is directed to the angel of the church of Ephesus.

That the church of Antioch had many congregations, is argued from the multitude of believers, Acts xi. 21, 24, 26. And from the multitude of pastors

and teachers, Acts xiii. 1, xv. 35. This able report was concluded with this argument: when there were more believers than could meet in one place, and more pastors than could be for one congregation, then there must have been more congregations than one; but it was so in these churches, ergo, &c. And it was lawful for these to be under one presbyterial government; therefore, more congregations than one may now be under one presbytery.

The debate was continued for several weeks, and at last was decided in favour of presbytery, by a large majority; and the proposition was then sent to Parliament, when it was confirmed by both Houses.

The preceding specimen of discussion has been extracted from Dr. Lightfoot's Journal.

In general, the debates were deliberate and learned; and the speakers treated each other with great courtesy and deference; but sometimes they became. not only warm, but hot, according to Baillie; and in one instance, the Assembly was thrown into hubbub and confusion, while Dr. Burgess was speaking.

CHAPTER XIV.

Origin of the difference between the Parliament and the Assembly of Divines.

WHEN the Assembly had gone through the several points which related to presbyterial government, they presented their plan to the Parliament for their sanction. As the judgment of the majority of the Assembly was in favour of the jus divinum of presbytery, and wished to have this principle established by the civil government, and as many of the leading men in Parliament were inclined to Erastian principles, this subject gave rise to warm discussion in the House of Commons, as it had done in the Assembly. Mr. Glynn and Mr. Whitaker spoke largely against the jus divinum of any particular form of church govern

ment; and when the question was put to vote, the decision was against the proposition of the Assembly; and instead of determining that the government of the church was of divine authority, by congregational, classical, and synodical assemblies, their resolution. was "That it is lawful and agreeable to the word of God, that the church be governed by congregational, classical, and synodical assemblies."

The loss of this important question in Parliament, greatly affected the minds of the Scottish Commissioners, and the Presbyterians in the Assembly and out of the Assembly. Efforts were made to stir up the people, by representing that the church was in danger. Under this impression, the Common Council of London were induced to petition Parliament, "that the Presbyterian Discipline might be established as the Discipline of Jesus Christ." The House of Commons, however, were no how disposed to recede from the ground which they had taken; and in their answer said, "That the citizens must have been misinformed of the proceedings of the House." And when the ministers of London came forward with a petition to the same effect, they were told by the speaker, "that they need not wait for an answer, but go home and look to the charges of their several congregations." And immediately a committee was appointed to inquire into the origin of these petitions.

The Presbyterian ministers having met with such a rebuff from the House of Commons, resolved to apply to the House of Lords, who received them civilly, and promised to take their request into consideration. But after two months, receiving no answer, they determined to renew their application, and to give it the more weight, they prevailed with the Lord Mayor and court of aldermen to join with them in presenting an address for a speedy settlement of church government, according to the covenant; and that no toleration might be given to popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, profaneness, or any thing contrary to sound doctrine, and that all private assemblies might be restrained." This petition was pre