Chap. IV. 'Ihe HISTORY of the PuRITANS. 97 ing in of the covenant, fo that the efbblilhment was left without a fingle K. Charles I. advocate. All who remained were for taking down t?e .main pillars ?f ~ the hierarchy, before they had agreed what fort of butldmg to erect tn · its room. - · The majority at firJl: intended on.!J the reducing epi(copacy to the Jl:and- Of tht pref· ard of the firJl: or fecond age, but Ior the f~ke of the Jcots alliance, were byterians. prevailed with to lay afide the name and funct ion of bifhops, and attempt the eJl:ablilhing a prefbyterial form, which at length they advanced into jus diviizum, or adivine inflitution, derived exprefsly from ChriJl: and his apoil:les. This engaged them in fo many controverfies, as prevented their laying the top il:one of the building, fo that it fell to pieces before it was perfected. The chief patrons of prefbytery in the houfe of commons, were Denzil Hollis, Efq; Sir William Wailer, Sir Philip Stapleton, Sir John Clotworthy, Sir Benjamin Rudyard, Serjeant Maynard, Colonel Majfey, Colonel Barley, John G6•nn, Efq; and a few others. · The ERASTIANS formed another branch of the alfembly, fn called Of the er;.f. from Erqjlus, a german divine of the fixteenth century. The pajloral ~ans. J dfice according to him was only perfwafive, like a profeifor of the fci- L~f:te~ 5 139 ences over his il:udents, without any power of the keys annexed. The ' · • Lord's fupper and other ordinances of the gofpel, were to be free and open to all. The miniJl:er might diifuade the vicious and unqualified from the communion, but might not refufe it, or inflict any kind of cenfure ; the punilhment of all offences either of a civil or religious nature, being referved to the magiil:rate. The pretended advantage of this fcheme was, that it avoided the erecting imperium in imperio, or two different powers in the fame civil government; it effectually deil:royed all that fpiritual jurifdiCl:ion and co-ercive power over the confciences of men, which had been challenged by popes, prelates, prefbyteries, &c. and made the government of the church, a creature if the }late. Moll: of our firfl: reformers were fo far in thele fentiments, as to maintain that no one form of church-government is prefcribed in fcripture as an invariable rule for future ages; as Cranmer, Redmayn, Cox, &c. and archbilhop Whitgzjt, in his controverfy with Cartwright, delivers the fame opinion; " I deny (iays he). that the fcripture has fet down any one cer- " tain form of church-government to be perpetuaL--Again, it is well " known, tliat the manner and form of government expreifed in the " fcriptures nei ther is now, nor can, nor ought to be obferved either " touching perfons or functions.-- The charge of this is left to the " magiil:rate, fo that nothing be contrary to the word of God. The go- '' vernment of the church mufl: be according to the form of government " in the common wealth." The chief patrons of this fcheme in the affembly were Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Go/man, Mr. Se/den, Mr. Whitlock; and VoL. II. 0 in
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=