were not required to approve, severed the Puritans from the Established Church. They grieved, they mourned, they expostulated, about things which afflicted their consciences; but they thought not of separation. Had they been allowed to exonerate themselves from the charge of countenancing what, in all sincerity, they disallowed; or, had they not been commanded to belie their conviction by an explicit approbation of what they abhorred, the name of dissenters from the church of England had never been known. Un-episcopal in their judgment they certainly were; as were all the continental Protestants, and all the fathers of the British reformation. They disliked, they loathed, certain exteriour observances; but still, had they been permitted to dislike and to loathe without exciting public disturbance-had they not been required to deny what they believed to be truth, and to profess what they believed to be falsehood-had not the price of their peace in the establishment been rated so high as the perjury of their souls before God, they had never been separated from the church of England. As it was, they did not retire, they were driven from her bosom: and they have thus left upon record their testimony of martyrdom to the sacredness of that communion which belongs to the church of God,

and to the criminality of dividing it upon slight pretexts. The same thing may be said of the rent begun in 1732, in the church of Scotland. The Seceders did not voluntarily withdraw, they were expelled. Had the Commission of the General Assembly, and the General Assembly itself known their own interests-had they listened more to the counsels of Christian peace than to the pride of a secular establishment, the church of Scotland had been "one and indivisible." But, like England with her Laud and her Starehamber, she chose to be ferocious: and she broke the golden chain of her unity, perhaps never to be repaired till those days of the "Son of man" which, according to his word, we confidently expect. In the mean time has happened what the nature of human passions might forewarn us to anticipate: grievance has been accumulated upon grievance, and complaint upon complaint. The point of honour with the devotees of the establishment is to heap contempt on the separatists; and, with the devotees of separation, to degrade the establishment. And thus, while "high church," on both sides of the Tweed, deals out its proscriptions more in the spirit of the world than in the bowels of Christ, the compliment is returned by their antagonists with hearty good will. Many things are now alleged

to justify dissent from the church of England, and secession from the church of Scotland, which, we know, were not among the original causes of disunion. And so it is with all parties after their disagreement has become inveterate. This is humiliating, but it is true. And the arm of TRUTH must not be unnerved, light her blow where it may.

To return. The church of England continued in this uncomfortable state. Power persecuting right, and right remonstrating to power-the secular hierarchy commanding, and the scriptural conscience disobeying and suffering, till that memorable epoch in the reign of CHARLES I.— the meeting of the Assembly of divines at Westminster, in 1643.

This Assembly was called for the express purpose of reforming more perfectly "the discipline, liturgy, and government of the church," so that "such a government might be settled in the church as should be most agreeable to God's holy word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the church at home, and nearer agreement with the church of Scotland, and other reformed churches abroad."

The assembly was originally composed of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Independents; with commissioners, both lay and clerical, from

the church of Scotland. The Episcopal divines withdrew at an early period of their discussions, viz. before the introduction of the "Solemn league and covenant, "* and the number of Independents was but small;† so that the business of the assembly was managed principally by the Presbyterians.

On the form of church-government there was much difference of judgment, long and warm debate, and great embarrassment.

In the body of Christian doctrine there was almost a perfect harmony. A few members objected to " some expressions relating to reprobation, to the imputation of the active as well as passive obedience of Christ; and to several passages in the chapters of liberty of conscience, and church discipline; but the confession, as far as it related to articles of faith, passed the Assembly and Parliament by a very great majority;" and was, without exception, adopted by the church of Scotland. The Independents, when they formed themselves into a separate body, thirteen years afterwards, i. e. in 1658, published a confession of faith, called the Savoy confession, which, for substance, is the same as the Assembly's. "They have omitted all those chapters in the

* NEALE, II. 68. IB. 258.

NEALE says, "not above six" Vol. II. p 44

Assembly's confession which relate to discipline; as the 30th and 31st, with part of the 20th and 24th, relating to the power of Synods, councils, church censures, marriage and divorce, and the power of the civil magistrate in matters of religion." But "upon the whole, the difference between these two confessions in point of doctrine is so small, that the modern Independents have, in a manner, laid aside the use of it," (their own,) "in their families, and agreed with the Presbyterians in the use of the Assembly's catechism."*

In the result, therefore, of the Westminster Assembly's deliberation-an assembly not surpassed even by the Synod of Dordt, or the council of Nice-we have the doctrinal judgment of at least the English Presbyterians and Independents, and of the whole church of Scotland. That judgment in the article of church-communion is the more important, as the churches immediately concerned in the present inquiry have sprung from them; have received, all of them the doctrine, many of them the government, discipline, and worship, settled by that most venerable assembly. So that when we have the doctrine of the Westminster confession of faith on the article of communion, we have the faith avowed at

* TB. 507.