The Reformation was a messy business. As people broke away from Rome they began to look afresh at the Bible, with various factions emerging over differing opinions of interpretation. However, it was a great opportunity to look at church beliefs and practice and line them up against church traditions, to test everything, and hold on to what was good, jettisoning all that contradicted Scripture. In 1643 the English Parliament at Westminster, which had been largely influenced by the Puritans, called for an Assembly, in order to gather learned religious leaders to work out an essential template for the churches to follow. This was primarily made up of Puritans within the Church of England, who desired further reformation of the church, and who feared compromise with Roman Catholic practices, which potentially could end up being the cause of them being dragged back to Rome.
Of the 121 original church ministers represented at Westminster, only a handful were Presbyterians from the Church of Scotland, but they declined voting powers. Even though there were only six of them between 1643 and 1647 (Alexander Henderson, Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie, Robert Blair, Robert Douglas and Robert Baillie), their influence was enormous. Besides this, there were also nine church elders from Scotland, including Archibald Johnston, Lord Warriston, the lawyer who had drawn up the National Covenant with Alexander Henderson in 1638. Amongst the English there were thirty elected members of both the House of Lords and House of Commons, but they did not exercise voting rights.
For almost everyone gathered, the authority of the Bible was vital, and all church traditions should be weighed against this. Furthermore, the Presbyterian influence of Calvinism and covenant theology were accepted by most. The biggest, longest, and most vociferous of the discussions was about the structure of church governance. Almost all agreed that the episcopal pyramid structure of power through the bishops, which was too similar to that of Rome, had to be demolished, and replaced by a New Testament democratic process. The Presbyterians had had a huge influence in shaping this understanding in London, but in Scotland the local church was under the authority of the presbytery. The Congregationalist Puritans represented at the Assembly, considered the presbytery to be a potential snare as a controlling body, stifling the local church; they argued instead for autonomy for each congregation. When, at last, the voting came in, the majority favoured the Presbyterian system, believing it was a more orderly and biblical model.
Another lengthy debating point was over what was called Erastianism, which was the belief that the State should have supremacy over church affairs. For example, Parliament at Westminster had summoned the Assembly. Discerning the boundaries between State control of the church, and church autonomy, is a difficult and thorny issue, which would plague us for centuries to come in Scotland.
The Assembly was seen as a great victory for the Scottish church, following on from their successes with the National Covenant (1638) and Solemn League and Covenant (1643). However, storm clouds were gathering. King Charles I saw the Westminster Assembly as an act of defiance and rebellion by both Parliaments, and by the Puritans and Presbyterians. Being committed to his perceived divine right of the king as head over the church, and having an autocratic view of his sovereign power, he would not give in meekly without a show of strength.
‘Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3, NKJV).
Image: John Rogers Herbert, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.