the assembly for
the express purpose of considering, among other things, what should be
put in its stead. It may have been thought, however, that it would
impart a more liberal and eclectic character to the assembly to send a
sprinkling of known Anglicans into it; or it may have been thought right
to give some of the most respected of these an opportunity of retrieving
themselves by acquiescing in what they could not prevent. As it chanced,
however, the refusal of most of these to appear in the assembly at all,
and the all but immediate dropping-off of the one or two who did appear
at first, saved the assembly much trouble. It became thus a compact
body, fit for its work, and in the main of one mind and way of thinking
on some of the problems submitted to it.

In respect of theological doctrine, for example, the assembly, as it was
then left, was practically unanimous. They were, almost to a man,
Calvinists, or anti-Arminians, pledged by their antecedents to such a
revision of the articles as should make the national creed more
distinctly Calvinistic than before. Moreover, they were agreed as to
their method for determining doctrine. It was to be the rigid
application of the Protestant principle that the Bible is the sole rule
of faith. The careful interpretation of Scripture--_i.e._, the
collecting on any occasion of discussion of all the texts in the Old and
New Testaments bearing on the point discussed, and the examination of
these texts singly and in their connection and in the original tongues
when necessary, so as to ascertain their exact sense--this was the
understood rule with them all. Learning was, indeed, in demand, and the
chief scholars, especially the chief Hebraists and rabbinists, of the
assembly, were much looked up to: there might be references also to the
fathers and to councils; no kind of historical lore but would be
welcome: only all must subserve the one purpose of interpreting
Scripture; and fathers, councils, and whatnot, could be cited, not as
authorities, but only as witnesses. This understanding as to the
determination of doctrine by the Bible alone, accompanied as it was by a
nearly unanimous preconviction that it was the Calvinistic body of
doctrines alone that could be reasoned out of the Bible, was to keep the
assembly, I repeat, pretty much together from the first in matters of
creed and theology. For perplexing questions as to the extent and limits
of the inspiration of the Bible had no