influence, however, belongs to Scotland; for this influence existed long after its laws and institutions had ceased to be an element in the constitution of Church and State in England. Indeed, what the Westminster Assembly

Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines and other Commissioners at Westminster,' by George Gillespie, a celebrated minister, often referred to in our narrative. To those not practically engaged in polemics or Biblical criticism, this is the driest of all reading. It condenses, and with considerable skill, the purport of long wordy debates, giving their very essence in hard criticism on the Scriptures in the original Greek and Hebrew, as lending support to either side in the controversies about articles of belief and of Church government. The whole is here and there illuminated by a meteoric contribution from the brilliant scholarship of Selden. It was printed from the original manuscript in 1846, as part of a collection called 'The Presbyterian's Armoury.'

The other book is the 'Journal of the Assembly of Divines,' by Dr John Lightfoot. It makes the thirteenth and last volume of the edition of his works printed in 1822-25. This affords us a closer view of the incidents of the debate and the individuality of the speakers than the other. Thus :

"Then fell we upon another point or clause-viz., 'It belongeth to the pastor's office to pray with and for his people.'

"Here Mr Herrick urged that it should be expressed, 'That it is the pastor's office also to curse upon occasion;' but this was waived for the present."-P. 45.

So when Selden, as was his wont, would upset a whole fabric of debate by showing that it proceeded on some ignorance of law or of Hebrew :—

"Mr Selden. By the laws of England none can ordain but only a bishop with some presbyters' (then a citation of authorities).

"And whereas our Covenant swears out the regimen ecclesiæ, this that we have in hand is not regimen ecclesiæ; and we have sworn to preserve the laws of the kingdom, of which this is one.'

"This speech cost a great deal of debate, and had many answers given it; and, among other things, Mr Henderson, and the Lord Mackland [Maitland] after him, took it to heart, and expressed their resentment of it, that there had been too much boldness with the Covenant."-P. 121.

On the question of the presence of the people at excommunication, "Sir Archibald Johnston gave this example, that a murderer in Scotland is by law to be executed between sun and sun in an open market-place, coram populo. Yet this tieth not the people to any interest in his execution, nor tieth him so to be present-and so is it with this case."-P. 139.

On 29th January 1644 we have a debate, "with great heat," about

enjoined is still matter of living practice and discussion through all but a small portion of ecclesiastical Scotland.

The Assembly was constituted by an ordinance of the Lords and Commons of England on the 12th of June 1643. Finding the existing Church government by bishops and other grades to be pernicious, it is resolved "that the same shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be settled in the Church as may 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. And for the better effecting hereof, and for the vindicating and clearing of the doctrine of the Church of England from all false calumnies and aspersions, it is thought fit and necessary to call an Assembly of learned, godly, and judicious divines, to consult and advise of such matters and things touching the premises as shall be proposed to them by both or either of the Houses of Parliament, and to give their advice and counsel therein to both or either of the said Houses, when and as often as they shall be thereunto required."

The members of this Assembly were not left to selection through any ecclesiastical organisation. They were named by Parliament. They consisted of ten Peers and twenty members of the Commons as lay assessors, and a hundred and twenty-one clergymen. The constitution of the body was shifted from time to time, according to the rate of attendance and other incidents; but Parliament never quitted a firm hold on its constitution and power. The Prolocutor or president, Dr Twiss, was named by Parliament; and when difficulties and disputes arose, they were to be referred to Parliament. By the same authority, certain commissioners for Scotland were invited to attend

the power of the civil magistrate in matters ecclesiastic, Gillespie fighting with Nye, when the Lord Maitland stood up and “related the news of the Scots now being in the kingdom; that they marched in on that day that the public thanksgiving was at Christ's Church, and that on Wednesday last they were within seven miles of Alnwick."-P. 130.

the discussions. There were from the clergy, Baillie, Henderson, Rutherford, and Gillespie-all men with gifts that might make them remarkable in any intellectual arena. Robert Douglas, the reputed grandson of Queen Mary, was named as a fifth, but he never attended. For the lay elders there was the redoubted Johnston of Warriston, the most able and zealous of a group of lay statesmen-they were not in all, perhaps, above three or four -who were as thorough warriors in the ecclesiastical department of the great struggle as the clergy themselves. Along with him were Lord Cassilis and Lord Maitland, in later times more renowned than illustrious as Duke of Lauderdale. There were afterwards added Argyle, Balmerinoch, and Loudon, with Robert Meldrum and George Winram.

These, with all others there present, were under the control of the Parliament. In Baillie's slightly indignant words, "Here no mortal man may enter to see or hear without ane order in wryte from both Houses of Parliament; "1 and in acknowledging a comforting assurance from ecclesiastical sympathisers in Holland, he says: "As for returning an answer, they have no power to write one line to any soul but as the Parliament directs, neither may they importune the Parliament for warrants to keep foreign correspondence." 2 There can be no doubt that the organising of this Assembly was a wise act. It may be questioned if ever a large deliberative body acted with the sagacity that predominated on this and other occasions in the Long Parliament. The country was all on fire with religious fervour. The Parliament had grave and momentous work before it, and it was well, if possible, that this work should be done without risk of intrusion by the elements of religious contention. It would be wise to have all this perilous matter cleared away and removed into a safe place. The invitation to the various zealots virtually was: You will be free to open up all the outlets of talk and discussion; nay, you shall exercise your powers in all honourable distinc

1 Letters, ii. 107.

2 Ibid., 186.

tion, and with every facility and appliance for exciting and protracting discussion, provided you take it all to a place apart, and leave us unmolested to discuss our civil business.

The arrangement was accomplished with a dexterous subordination of the ecclesiastical to the civil authority. The hand of the State was laid on it all with such firm precision, that no movement for the establishment of a separate spiritual power was practicable; and this was done in a shape admitting no ground for complaint. No power of any existing institution was usurped. It was a voluntary assembling. None were bound to attend whose conscience revolted at the authority assumed by the Parliament-these might remain at home for conscience' sake, and some did so. Still it was safe to calculate on Churchmen being influenced by the seductive charms of debate. The attraction would strengthen day by day as the wordy war went on, and small scruples would be forgotten. So it was; although a few were able to abstain, the centre of debate aggregated to it enough of the inflammable material to leave the Parliament in safety.

The members of the Assembly, indeed, held meeting after meeting with a growing enthusiasm, the reflection of which may be found in the picturesque opening scene from the pen of our old friend Baillie. It will be seen from this description how completely the order of business in the Assembly was modelled on the forms of the English House of Commons-a system marvellously beautiful and complete, and, for compelling a numerous assembly to act with freedom and order, beyond all comparison the finest organisation that human genius has accomplished. The description is the more clear, that it was made by one who had been trained in another school, and especially noticed the matters in which the two differed from each other. He could not but see and acknowledge the merits of the English system; yet we find him longing somewhat for the impetuous action of his own people, when he says: "They follow the way of their Parliament.

Much of their way is good, and worthy of our imitation, only their longsomeness is woeful at this time, when their Church and kingdom lies under a most lamentable anarchy and confusion."

"The like of this Assembly I did never see, and, as we hear say, the like was never in England, nor anywhere is shortly like to be. They did sit in Henry the VII.'s Chapel, in the place of the convocation; but since the weather grew cold, they did go to Jerusalem Chamber, a fair room in the Abbey of Westminster, about the bounds of the college forehall, but wider. At the ane end nearest the door, and both sides, are stages of seats as in the new Assembly House at Edinburgh; but not so high, for there will be room but for five or six score. At the upmost end there is a chair set on a frame, a foot from the earth, for the Mr Proloqutor, Dr Twisse. Before it on the ground stands two chairs for the two Mr Assessors, Dr Burgess and Mr Whyte. Before these two chairs, through the length of the room, stands a table, at which sits the two scribes, Mr Byfield and Mr Roborough. The house is all well hung, and has a good fire, which is some dainties at London. Foranent the table, upon the proloqutor's right hand, there are three or four ranks of forms. On the lowest we five do sit. Upon the other, at our backs, the members of Parliament deputed to the Assembly. On the forms foranent us, on the proloqutor's left hand, going from the upper end of the house to the chimney, and at the other end of the house, and backside of the table, till it come about to our seats, are four or five stages of forms, whereupon their divines sit as they please, albeit commonly they keep the same place. From the chimney to the door there is no seats, but a void for passage. The Lords of Parliament used to sit on chairs, in that void, about the fire. We meet every day of the week but Saturday. We sit commonly from nine to one or two afternoon. The proloqutor at the beginning and end has a short prayer. The man, as the world knows, is very learned in the questions he has studied, and very good, beloved of all, and highly esteemed; but merely bookish,