THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
the illness resulting from his labors; in his closing
days he suffered also from temporal needs, having
devoted so completely his income to his work that
when he died a subscription was necessary for the
expenses of his funeral. (J. BELSHEIM?.)
BrstiograpHy: H. Hammond, Den nordiske Missions Historte, Copenhagen, 1787; Christoterpe, 1833, pp. 299 saq.; G. Plitt, Kurze Geschichte der lutherischen Mission, pp. 133 sqq., Erlangen, 1871.
WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY: A synod of Calvinistic divines held in London 1645-52. This synod was the culminating act in the struggle between the Anglican and Puritan parties in the Church of England which had been in progress for more than a century, from the days of William Tyndale, and had been warmly fought during the reign of Elizabeth. It occupies the first place among the synods of the Reformed Church for the distinction of the men who composed it, the character of the documents it sent forth, and the size of the constituency which accepts these documents. It was never accepted, however, on the continent, where the canons and decrees of the Synod of Dort proved to be the most widely accepted Reformed symbols.
In spite of the attempts of Elizabeth to crush all Puritan dissent, Puritanism continued to be a strong force till the end of her reign. Under Elizabeth’s
successor, James I., 1603-25, and his
Summons son Charles.I., 1625-49, the repressive
and Object. policy was continued and a certain
galling element introduced especially through the Book of Sports (q.v.), and under the régime of Archbishop Laud. To the difference which divided the two parties in matters of ritual and church government was added a wide difference in the matter of doctrine. The theology of both was strongly Calvinistic down to the close of Elizabeth’s reign, as is shown by the Lambeth Articles (q.v.), which were issued in 1595 with the signatures of the archbishops of Canterbury and York and of other Anglican prelates. Arminianism began to infiltrate from Holland into England under James, and was adopted by Laud as a policy to be carried out in determining the appointment of bishops and other clergy. [The so-called Arminianism of Laud and other High-churchmen was rather the semi-Pelagianism of the Roman Catholic Church. a. H. N.] Through the insane measures of Laud Scotch Presbyterians were to be brought into close alliance with the English Puritans. Following in the line of James II.’s measures to crush out Presbyterianism and abolish permanently the General Assembly, Laud sought to force episcopacy and the ritual of the Anglican Church upon Scotland, and in 1633 made offensive display of the Anglican ritual at Holyrood House, Edinburgh. Laud’s Book of Canons and a new liturgy based upon the Book of Common Prayer were to be made obligatory and courts of high commission were set up in every diocese to see that they were observed. The attempt to introduce the new order in Edinburgh, July 23, 1637, produced an uproar (see GEDDES, JENNY), and the resistance of the people embodied itself in the National Covenant, Feb. 28, 1638, which bound the people to defend their ecclesiastical liberties against papal corruptions (see CovENANTERs, § 3).
The crisis in England was brought about by the
summons of the long parliament in 1640, which Charles, because of his financial straits, was forced to convene. This parliament, although its leaders were Anglicans, was strongly Puritan in spirit. Petitions poured in upon it to institute ecclesiastical changes, including the “‘ Root and Branch Petition ”’ with 15,000 signatures asking that episcopacy be done away “ with all its dependencies, roots and branches.”’ In 164%1,the house of commons ordered images, altars, crucifixes, and relics of idolatry removed from the church buildings. At the invitation of London ministers, a delegation from the Scotch Assembly led by Alexander Henderson (q.v.) visited London to set up a presbytery. In 1642 parliament abolished episcopacy and the liturgy. The parliamentary and royalist armies were in the field. It was in the midst of this political and ecclesiastical commotion that the Westminster Assembly was called. The ‘Grand Remonstrance” had been sent up to parliament demanding such a religious assembly to discuss and arrange matters ecclesiastical within the realm. Two bills convening the synod were suppressed by Charles. The third resulted in the gathering which held its first meeting July 1, 1648. The object of the assembly was declared to be “‘ to settle the government and liturgy of the Church of England and for the vindicating and clearing of the doctrine of the said church from false aspersions and vituperations as should be agreeable to the Word of God and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the church at home and bring it unto near accord with the Church of Scotland and other Reformed churches abroad.”
The membership was fixed by parliament at 121 clergymen and 30 laymen, 20 laymen being chosen from the house of commons and 10 from the house
of lords. The clergymen were taken two from each county, and two each from Oxford, Member- Cambridge, and the Channel Islands,
ship, Place one from each county of Wales, and of Meeting, four from London. To this number and was added the delegation sent by the Parties. Scotch Assembly. Among the eminent English divines who had no seat in the
assembly were Richard Baxter and John Owen (qq.v.).. Three delegates are said to have been invited from New England, John Cotton of Boston, Thomas Hooker of Hartford, and John Davenport of New Haven (qq.v.). The first meeting was held in Westminster Abbey, Dr. Twisse preaching the sermon (not extant) from John xiv. 18. Assembling at first in the chapel of Henry VII., the body adjourned to the Jerusalem Chamber (q.v.) in the deanery of Westminster, where it continued to sit. In matters of doctrine, all the members were Calvinists, although they were divided between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism. The Minutes of the assembly show that moderate Calvinism was represented by a body of eminent and weighty men. The leading difference was upon the subject of church government. There were five groups, representing four different types of opinion as follows: (1) The Episcopalians, made up of four prelates, including Archbishop Ussher (q.v.), and five doctors