D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
11
HENRY JACOB AND THE FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Let me explain at once why I haven chosen this subject on which I am to address you. Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that it has been chosen for me: because this year happens to be the 350th anniversary of the founding in this country of the first Congregational or Independent Chapel which has had a continuous existence.
It has been my lot on other occasions and in other places to remind people of certain important historical occasions. I am sure that very few, if any of you, knew that this year is the 350th anniversary of the founding of that first Congregational Chapel. We are living in days when people no longer remember these things, and are not interested in them. It is a very significant symptom of the spiritual malaise that afflicts us, and I would probably have given this address in any case this evening, because a 350th anniversary is an important one.
But, on top of that, something has happened this year which makes this fact still more interesting and throws into still greater significance this thing which happened 350 years ago. Last May the Congregational Union of Independent Churches in Great Britain came to an end with the formation of what is called the Congregational Church of England. Now I have no hesitation in saying that the authorities of the Congregational Union were probably completely ignorant of the fact that they were taking this momentous step of doing away with essential Congregationalism on the 350th anniversary of the founding of the Congregational Chapel to which I am referring. But that is what they have succeeded in doing; and though it means nothing to them it means a great deal to me. So I felt that it would be wrong, apart from anything else, to allow this important occasion to pass without calling attention to it.
I am, as I say, interested in the mere history of this matter: but that is not my only interest. We are living in days when we cannot afford the luxury of mere antiquarian interests, neither can we indulge any historical bent that we may have as a matter of mere enjoyment. The times are too serious and too urgent for that. I am calling attention to this important anniversary because I think it has a great deal to teach us at the present time. It should help the thinking of every one of us.
We must never forget that the Puritans were not only interested in pastoral problems, or problems which come under the general heading of casuistry. They were, of course, vitally interested, as we have been so rightly reminded, in godliness and the outworking of the teaching of the Bible in daily life. But it would be a very regrettable and a most unfortunate thing for us to forget that they were also tremendously, and indeed even primarily, interested in the doctrine of the nature of the Christian Church. And it is with that, of course, that I shall of necessity have to deal as I tell you something about Henry Jacob and the founding of the first Congregational Chapel to have had a continuous existence. All this becomes peculiarly interesting and important for us because of the fluid condition in which we find ourselves as ministers and members of Christian churches at this present time.
The task which I am thus attempting to deal with is not an easy one. Clearly, the first thing that is necessary is to give a definition, if we can, of what is meant by Congregational or Independent. Indeed, this whole matter of what is meant by the very term Puritan is an extremely involved one which has been receiving much attention recently. There is a very fascinating essay on this subject under the title of “Puritanism: The Problem of Definition” by Professor Basil Hall of Cambridge.1
There has been from the beginning great confusion concerning this question of the exact meaning of the term Puritan. There were many factors which led to that. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans is one of the factors.2 He was a bit careless in his use of the term, and others have tended to follow him. Furthermore, as Professor Basil Hall points out quite rightly, the leaders of the Congregational and Baptist churches, priding themselves in the fact that their churches have attained unto respectability in this present century, are very anxious to play down their Separatist origins. That is not surprising, indeed it is inevitable, as is often seen in the case of individuals who have “risen in the world.” These factors then have conspired together to bring a great deal of confusion into this whole question of the definition of the term Puritan. The two volumes by Champlin Burrage, which were issued in 1912, on The Early English Dissenters3 I believe did more good than anything I have come across to clear up this confusion, and since then the position has somewhat improved. But still it is not too clear even now. This term Puritan has been used very loosely, and as Professor Hall says again, its meaning has been greatly inflated.
What kind of definition is possible therefore? Well, the first thing we have to remember is that it is used currently, and has been for some time, in a very loose way to include people who differed not only radically from one another on this issue of the Church, but even in a very bitter manner. They have all been lumped together always as Puritans. That is where the difficulty has come in. In a sense, of course, they did hold certain things in common but at this point they very definitely divided and disagreed.
I am going to suggest a rough kind of definition. Roughly up until about 1570 Puritans were people who can be described as restlessly critical and occasionally rebellious members of the Church of England who desired some modification in church government and worship. You can think of examples and illustrations of that. They were members of the Church of England. Their one concern was that the Reformation should be carried further. They felt that the Church of England had stopped halfway between Rome and Geneva, and they were anxious that the Reformation should be carried out more thoroughly in the matter of ceremonies and discipline and things like that. That was the position more or less up until the time that Thomas Cartwright and others began to put forward the Presbyterian view of church government.
It is very important to remember that Cartwright, like those other Anglicans to whom I have referred, was not a Separatist. He believed, and the Presbyterians with him, that they could reform the Church of England in the direction of, and turn it into, a Presbyterian Church. For that reason they were not Separatists. But fairly soon afterwards people called Separatists came into being. Actually the first Separatist church in this country was probably one that was formed here in London in 1567 by a man called Richard Fitz; but it had a very checkered and short history. It is when you come on to the 1580s to people like Robert Browne and Robert Harrison that the Separatists really come to be fairly clearly defined.
These were the people who felt that the principle that Christ’s Church should be coterminous with the Tudor or Stuart State was wrong; so they believed in separating from the Established Church which took that view. The fact that Browne subsequently recanted and lived a long life as a vicar in the Church of England does not really make any difference to the matter of principle.
After Browne and Harrison there came three men who were still more remarkable, it seems to me, as Separatists. They were Henry Barrowe, John Greenwood, and John Penry, each of whom was put to death for their principles in 1593. Now these men believed in complete separation from the Established Church. The difference between the two groups was sometimes put like this, that the first group believed in “Tarrying for the Magistrate,” and the second group said “Reformation Without Tarrying for Any”—the title of a book by Browne.4
That, then, was the position until the turn of the sixteenth/ seventeenth century. After that it really becomes most difficult. The trouble has been that everybody seems to have assumed that the Independents were the direct continuation of the Brownists or the Barrowists or the Greenwoodites, whatever you like to call them. But I want to try to show that that was not the case. This is the point at which we have to be most circumspect. Certain men arose, and this man Henry Jacob about whom I am going to speak was one of the more important of them, who really were responsible for the beginning of true Independency or Congregationalism.
What then was the difference between Jacob’s position, and that of his followers who have sometimes been called “Jacob-ites”—not Jacobites—and the Separatists like the Brownists or the Barrowists or even the Anabaptists? Well, it can be put like this: the Independents did not regard the Church of England as being altogether wrong, they did not oppose occasional attendance at the services of the Church of England, and indeed were not really opposed to the notion of a State Church as such. Oliver Cromwell, for instance, was a true Independent but he continued the tithe system when he came to authority and to power and his government took an active part in organizing the religious life of this country.
We can, therefore, look at it like this, that until about 1640 you had that kind of original Puritan who was essentially Anglican, and who was non-Separatist of course; then you had the Presbyterian type of Puritan, also non-Separatist; then right at the other extreme you had the Separatists quite plain and clear and open. But then this new group came into being, it seems to me, about 1605 very definitely as the result of the understanding of this man Henry Jacob.
It is very interesting to notice the relationship between Jacob and John Robinson, known as “the pastor of the Pilgrim Fathers.” John Robinson was first a Separatist, but became an Independent, and this is where Neal and others have gone astray. I have been quite convinced by the argument of Champlin Burrage with regard to this matter. The old idea used to be that it was John Robinson who turned Henry Jacob into an Independent; but it was actually the other way around. It was Henry Jacob who turned John Robinson from being a Separatist into an Independent. This, I think, is something that Champlin Burrage proves quite clearly by quotations from the works of Robinson before 1610 when he met Jacob, and quotations from works which he wrote afterwards, and the way, indeed, in which he behaved afterwards.
This is matter of some interest for us today as it shows that these men kept their minds open, that they were not rigid and set, but they were always ready to listen to new evidence, new argument, or fresh demonstrations from the Scripture. This is something that we tend to forget about them. There were some, of course, who were thoroughly rigid and set and would never change under any conditions whatsoever; but, speaking generally of them, I think it is true to say that they were prepared to consider other points of view.
From 1640 onwards, however, the position does seem to become quite different. From that time you get terms used regularly. Instead of a general conglomerate term like Puritan, the terms Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist, or Anabaptist came into use. Of course there were others also, like the Quakers and Fifth Monarchy men, the Diggers and others. But the interesting point is that terms like Independent, Baptist, and Presbyterian, rather than Puritan, were used more and more frequently from 1640 onwards. We must not be pedantic about these things, but if we are to understand the essence of the story of this man Henry Jacob it was essential that I should have said that much.
In confirmation of that I have a statement, a quotation from the famous Robert Baillie who wrote so much about the Westminster Assembly 1643–1647 and who was one of the Scottish members of it. Robert Baillie says, “For the Brownists, their number at London or Amsterdam is but very small.” “The Independent Puritans of London,” he likewise reports, “as yet do consist of much within one thousand persons; men, women, and all who to this day have put themselves in any known congregation of that way, being reckoned.” Then follows an unsolicited testimonial, “But setting aside numbers, for other respects they are of so eminent a condition, that not any nor all the rest of the Sects are comparable to them.” He is talking there in particular about the Independents. You observe that they were small in number in 1645, less than a thousand, he thinks, here in London.
There, then, is some attempt at a definition. I trust that it is quite clear that the Independents did not believe in breaking altogether with the Church of England. They were prepared to grant that the Church of England was a true church, at any rate that there were true churches within the Church of England, and true Christians; and they did not cut themselves off entirely. They believed in “occasional conformity” and they would on certain occasions, as I am going to show you by quotations later, join with the Episcopalians in services. They have been rightly called semi-Separatists.
I have tried to describe the situation in a broad and general way. The thing we need to grasp is that there was great confusion during all these years. If ever the position was fluid and uncertain it was then, as we have already been reminded by more than one paper in this conference.
Jacob’s Story
We now come directly to the story of Henry Jacob. He was born in the county of Kent, in 1553, and educated at St. Mary’s Hall, Oxford, later becoming a precentor at Christ Church in Oxford. He was then appointed vicar of Cheriton in Kent, a living which he held, roughly, until 1591. Then, he seems to have gone to Holland. He had already begun to imbibe Puritan teaching (I use the term again generally), and as the result of that he went to Holland and remained there for some time. He was not an extreme Puritan, as we can prove in this way. In 1599 he wrote a book—by the way, he was a very able and learned man—with this title: A Defence of the Churches and Ministry of England written in two Treatises against the reasons and objections of Mr. Francis Johnson.5 Mr. Francis Johnson was a Separatist and had been pastor of a Separatist Church in Holland. He had written saying that the Church of England was not a true Church, and her ministry therefore not a true ministry. Henry Jacob, you see, came to the defense of the Church of England in this Defence of the Churches and Ministry of England.
That is very indicative of his position. He had not, obviously, at that time ceased to have communion with the Church of England; but he rejected all of what he called “her corruptions.” He regarded the Church of England as having many corruptions, but in spite of that he would not say, as the Separatists did, that she was no longer a true church.
In Holland somewhere around about 1600 he became the minister of a “gathered church” at Middleburg in Zeeland in Holland. It was a church consisting mainly of English exiles. May I take this opportunity of saying that I think we as people in this country ought to register our gratitude to that country for the way in which it sheltered and harbored these exiles at that time. Considerable numbers went over from time to time, and they were always given a very warm welcome and great freedom in Holland. Of course, in other times this country did exactly the same thing.
But to go on with this history. In 1604 Jacob published a book with this title—remember he had defended the Church of England in 1599—Reasons Taken out of God’s Word and the Best Human Testimonies Proving a Necessity of Reforming Our Churches in England.6 Here are some of the things he maintained in that book: (1) the absolute perfection of the Holy Scriptures in all matters of faith and discipline without any human traditions; (2) that the ministry and ceremonies of the Church of England stood in need of reformation; (3) that for two hundred years the churches of Christ were not diocesan churches but congregational; (4) that the New Testament contains a particular form of church government; (5) that this form of church government is not changeable by man, and therefore no other form is lawful.
In 1605—you see how busy these men were—we find him back in this country, and joining in what was called “A Third Humble Supplication” to King James I. Incidentally, Henry Jacob had been one of the men who had presented the Millenary Petition at Hampton Court to James I, who had been James VI of Scotland, in 1603; and he was one of the men who had been grievously disappointed at the King’s refusal. But they went on petitioning the King, and here in this “Third Humble Supplication” they made an urgent request for toleration.
This is what they asked for:
Permission to assemble together somewhere publicly to the service and worship of God, and to use and enjoy peaceably among ourselves alone the whole exercise of God’s worship and of church government, namely, by a pastor, elder, and deacons in our several Assemblies without any tradition of men whatsoever, according only to the specification of God’s written word and no otherwise, which hitherto as yet in this our present state we could never enjoy. Provided always, that whosoever will enter into this way shall (1) before a Justice of Peace first take the oath of your Majesty’s supremacy and royal authority as the laws of the land at this present time do set forth the same; (2) And shall also afterwards keep brotherly communion with the rest of our English churches as they are now established, according as the French and Dutch churches do; (3) And shall truly pay all payments and duties both ecclesiastical and civil, as at this present they stand bound to pay in any respect whatsoever; (4) and if any trespass be committed by any of them whether ecclesiastically or civilly against good order and Christian obedience; That then the same person shall be dealt withall therein by any of your Majesty’s civil magistrates, etc.
That is a good summary of what these men were standing for at the time, namely about 1605. They desired in their congregations “a pastor, elder, and deacons,” and they did not wish to be compelled to follow any human tradition. They were willing to take the oath of supremacy, to remain in brotherly communion with the Church of England, and to pay all dues, etc.
About the same time in a paper by Jacob called Principles and Foundations of Christian Religion he gave his definition of a true visible church: “A true visible or ministerial Church of Christ is a particular congregation, being a spiritual perfect corporation of believers, and having power in its self immediately from Christ to administer all religious means of faith to the members thereof.”
Then with regard to the question as to how such a church is to be constituted and gathered, he says, “By a free mutual consent of believers joining and covenanting to live as members of a holy society together in all religious and virtuous duties as Christ and His apostles did institute and practise in the gospel. By such a free mutual consent also all civil perfect corporations did first begin.” The officers of a church are to be “a Pastor or Bishop, with Elders, and Deacons.” This is his position: he is advocating the employment of covenants in forming a church in the way that afterwards became so well known and popular, and what he wants is an “Independent or Congregational non-separatist church.” This is most important. He was not a Separatist and he never became a Separatist. But he did believe “that each congregation in the Church of England was sufficient to determine its own policy and manage its own affairs without the necessity of assistance from Archbishops and Bishops, or even from Classes, Synods, etc.” This was his position about 1605.
In 1610—I reminded you that he met John Robinson at that time—Jacob published a most important book with the title The Divine Beginning and Institution of Christ’s True, Visible, and Ministerial Church.7 As this is a most important point in this history I must quote some passages from this treatise of The Divine Beginning, as it was generally known. Jacob writes: “I acknowledge that in England there are true visible churches and ministers, though accidentally, yet, such as I refuse not to communicate with. My meaning is, that as these particular congregations have in them godly and holy Christians associated together, to serve God, so far as they see, agreeable to his Word; so they are in right from Christ essentially true churches of God, and as such to be acknowledged by us, and in public not to be absolutely separated from.”
Again we are reminded that he was not a Separatist and that there is a difference between a Separatist and an Independent. But here are some further extracts from this famous book, The Divine Beginning:
Two sorts of men there are, Christian reader, who have chiefly occasioned the publishing of this treatise. The first is those who do hold and maintain that Christ Jesus in the New Testament hath instituted no certain form of a visible church nor church government for us; but hath left the same arbitrary, and free to the discretion of men in authority to erect and to set up, to alter and change again, as they in their opinions shall think most fit for the several states and towns wherein they live; and so withal they hold and confess that Christ, in respect of his church and government as it is visible and outward, is not king, or lord, or lawgiver to the same. The second sort is those who so plainly and clearly acknowledge that Christ is King, Lord, and Lawgiver of His church as it is visible and outward, and that He hath instituted in the New Testament, as in the Old, a certain form of His visible church and government, for us everywhere and for ever, not to be altered or changed by any man or men whatever they be. Thus these most truly and soundly do profess and teach that Christians ought so to believe. Yet I know not how, nor on what reason they live themselves, and are well content that others also do live, continue, and remain in a clear contrary practice: that is, first, not at all to participate in any such form of a visible church and government as they profess is of Christ’s institution in the New Testament, and consequently is his visible kingdom on earth; secondly, they submit and stand subject unto a provincial diocesan lord bishop’s ecclesiastical government and remain apparent members of a provincial church never instituted, yet is contrary to this said reformation and therefore He is not King and Lord of such a church; neither hath he promised nor can we ordinarily have assurance of any spiritual blessing therein.
These two sorts of men, beloved of the Lord Jesus, have given the occasion of writing this little treatise, which maketh manifestly and I hope soundly and sufficiently against the former, in a direct course of argumentation; against the latter, by necessary infallible consequence; and verily there is no Christian heart, I suppose, if he will deeply and advisably weigh the matter with an upright and single conscience in God’s own presence, but will confess with me that both these sorts of persons (especially their errors) are, justly in these our days, needfully to be reproved. For it is evident in the eyes of all men who look into the case, that by the opinions and profession of the former a wide door is opened, and an easy way for libertines to walk in; and Familists, as they are called in England, who taking for their ground that the outward form of the church, ministry, and ceremonies in respect of God’s law are things indifferent, do make no matter to present themselves upon occasion, either privately or publicly, to the exercise of any religion, and from thence do quickly gather, by a likely consequence of reason as it seemeth to them, that seeing those things so nearly concerning God’s special worship are indifferent, therefore other outward things are indifferent also, and ought not to trouble any man’s conscience, nor are to be held either as commanded or forbidden by God: from whence a world of impieties and most unchristian practices to overflow the land.
And on he goes with a similar kind of argument. This particular book was one of the things that helped to turn John Robinson from being a Separatist into an Independent.
In the year 1611 Henry Jacob published another book amplifying what he had said, and setting out his arguments still more clearly. He adduced additional proofs from the Scripture, and the testimonies of the learned and the godly men from the days of the Apostles, that “Church government ought to be always with the people’s consent,” and that “A True church under the gospel containeth no more congregations but one. The members of the church created anew in Christ Jesus, have the right and power to choose pastors called to the work by the grace of God, and not by influence transmitted through the polluted channel of the Papacy.”
Then he goes on to show, as he sees it, that the arguments brought forward to justify the Church of England position really play into the hands of the Papists at that point:
Well, will our adversaries say that the Protestant’s ministry is justified sufficiently against the Papists, albeit the people have no consent in their ministers’ calling? Oh, would God learned men in England would show this substantially. Then would I, for my part, quickly conform. But otherwise let them be assured the Church of Rome, do what they can, will get ground of them in England, and this maketh me to lay this to heart as I do. Every day we are challenged by the Papists to prove the lawfulness of our ministry in England, and our calling to it. What say our learned men hereunto? A direct answer must be made to this, men’s consciences will not be satisfied with dilatory and shifting answers, nor if we leave scruples and difficulties in that we speak.
To justify the calling of our ministry in England and to prove the lawfulness thereof, we must plainly show that the persons who give this calling with us have good authority to give the same. This is the very point; let our learned men make this clear, and then let the Papists be stopped, then all men are satisfied. For it is a plain case and granted of all, that every true ministry in the church must be received from some persons who have good and just authority to give it; and this is essential to every true ministry.
Jacob works that out to the point that ultimately the argument, as he sees it, of the Church of England is this:
The Pope is he who made Archbishop Cranmer and Ridley such bishops. They had no other ordination since. And from them all the rest of our ministers have had their ordination to this day. And so the effect of all this is, that our whole ministry in England successively and derivatively cometh from the Pope, all that maintain the church state in England will thus answer. But oh, miserable defence, and woeful unto us, which indeed, though it be false, yet it is such as the Papists desire, and do triumph in. It is false in two ways. First, whatsoever the Church of Rome did give to Archbishop Cranmer, etc., that wholly they took away again, namely, when he fell from them, for then they both deposed him and excommunicated him. So that they left him no whit of that power and function which they had given him. But, questionless, if they could give it they could take it away, wherefore, so soon as he was ours, being thus cut off and excommunicated from the Church of Rome, he could not after that have any power (as derived from them) to make ministers, nor to do any other bishoply act. Secondly, we all know the Church of Rome to be the very Antichrist, chiefly in respect of their clergy and spiritual government, and most chiefly of all in respect of the Pope, from whom all the rest, as from the head, do take their power and authority. Now shall we say that very Antichrist can have power from Christ to make ministers? Or that we have a lawful ministry derived from those who had their power only from him? It cannot be. What communion hath light with darkness? What concord hath Christ with Belial? And so what hath Christ to do with Antichrist? Nothing at all. Thus then our consciences can have no assurance, we cannot have confidence in such estate of that ministry. But, certainly, Christ’s true ministers among us in England have a better original than this. Wherefore the answer of our state Protestants must be false. Yet in this answer who seeth not how the Papists do rejoice, triumph, and insult? Who seeth not how by this they are encouraged, strengthened, and multiplied among us exceedingly. Truly, it would pity a man’s heart to behold how this one point putteth life into thousands to stand up against Christ’s Gospel and liberty of their country also. For when they hear ourselves openly ascribe to the Church of Rome, and to their means, such a gift of grace, even that which is our glory, even the holy instrument of our faith unto salvation, for so is our ministry, they will say: if the branch be holy, the root is more; if the rivers be sweet, the head spring is delicious. And so how can it be chosen, but that the Papists will be graced, and get advantage among us?
That book, again, of course, influenced Robinson and a number of other people. All that was in 1611.
Jacob’s Confession
After this events moved rapidly, and it became clearer and clearer to this man that he must come back to England, and that he must establish a church on the lines that he had indicated in those books to which I have referred. Thus it came to pass that in 1616—350 years ago exactly—he came back to this country with that intent. And he put it into operation. At this point let me quote from the second volume of Champlin Burrage where he gives an account of this as gleaned from the Gould Manuscript which is preserved in Regent’s Baptist College and in which a history of all this is written in the so-called Jessey Records. This record tells us that Henry Jacob had much conference about these things both here in this country and after that in the Low Countries. He had converse and discoursed much with Mr. John Robinson, late pastor to the church at Leyden, and with others about these matters, and, returning to England, in London he held several meetings with the most famous men for godliness and learning such as Mr. Throgmorton and Mr. Travers—that is the famous Walter Travers who was, you remember, a colleague of the famous Richard Hooker in the Temple Church; Hooker in the morning saying one thing, Travers saying the exact opposite in the afternoon. Others consulted were Wing, Richard Maunsell, and John Dodd. He was brought to this position by these consultations, “that having seriously weighed all things and circumstances Mr. Jacob and some others sought the Lord about them in fasting and prayer together. At last it was concluded by the most of them that it was a very warrantable and commendable way to set up that course here as well as in Holland or elsewhere whatsoever troubles should ensue. Henry Jacob was willing to adventure himself for the Kingdom of Christ’s sake, the rest encouraged him.”
And so we come to the formation of this church in Southwark, here in London, in the year 1606. I have completely failed to find the name of the street; we simply know that it was in Southwark, and this is the account:
Hereunto the said Henry Jacob with Sabine, Staiesmore, Richard Browne, David Prior and various other well informed saints having appointed a day to seek the face of the Lord in fasting and prayer, wherein that particular of their union together as a Church was mainly commended to the Lord, in the ending of the day they were united. Thus, those who minded this present union, now so joining together joined both hands each with other Brother and stood in a Ringwise: their intent being declared, Henry Jacob and each of the rest made some confession or profession of their faith and repentance, some were longer, some were briefer. Then they covenanted together to walk in all God’s ways as He had revealed or should make known to them; thus was the beginning of that Church.
Within a few days they gave notice to the brethren here of the Ancient Church—which is a reference to the church of the Separatists. There had been several Separatist churches in the time of Barrowe and Greenwood and Penry, but most of the members had been put to death and the churches had been exterminated; but there were still odd people about meeting together; and so Jacob and his friends gave notice to them: “In the same year the said Henry Jacob with the advice and consent of the Church, and of some of those Reverend preachers beforesaid, published to the world ‘A Confession and Protestation in the name of certain Christians showing therein wherein they consent in doctrine with the Church of England, and wherein they were bound to dissent, with their evidence from the Holy Scriptures for their dissent in about twenty-eight particulars.’”8
I have here a copy of the first edition of this Confession: “A Confession and Protestation of the faith of certain Christians in England, holding it necessary to observe, and keep all Christ’s true substantial ordinances for His Church visible and political (that is, endued with power of outward spiritual government) under the gospel; though the same do differ from the common order of the land. Published for the clearing of the said Christians from the slander of schism, and novelty, and also of separation, and undutifulness to the magistrate, which their rash adversaries do falsely cast upon them.”9
After a brief introduction, there follow twenty-eight points. I am not going to go through them in detail but will simply give the outline and essence of each:
1. Christ’s offices. This summarizes what I quoted just now from the work Jacob published in 1610. The point is that Christ is the King of the Church in these matters of order and of government as well as in the other matters.
2. Scriptures all-sufficient. Here again it is said that there are clear instructions in the Scripture as to how a church should be formed in that way—that Christ, in other words, has exercised His Lordship in this respect through what we find in the Scriptures.
3. Church’s distinction, or an alternative heading, Christ’s true visible Church generally. “We believe that Christ’s true Church is to be noted and considered four ways”—and then the different forms of the church are described.
4. Now comes a much more interesting point. Christ’s true visible political Church in a more special manner. This says: “We believe that the nature and essence of Christ’s true visible Church under the gospel is a free congregation of Christians for the service of God, or a true spiritual body politic containing no more ordinary congregations but one, and that independent. Wherein chiefly two points are to be noted. First, that a true visible political church under the gospel is but one ordinary Congregation: and this is to be seen plainly in these Scriptures.” A list follows, starting with Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:4, 12, 13; 1 Corinthians 11:18, 20; and so on. Then: “The second point here to be noted is, That by God’s ordinance this one ordinary congregation of Christians is a spiritual body politic; and so it is a free congregation independent. That is, it hath from God the right and power of spiritual Administration, and government in itself, and over itself by the common and free consent of the people independently, and immediately under Christ, always in the best order they can. Which these places do prove”—again we have a list of Scriptural quotations.
5. Synods and councils. This is also interesting. “Howbeit we acknowledge with all, that there may be, and that on occasion there ought to be on earth a consociation of Congregations or Churches, namely by way of Synods.” Now while they believed in Independence in one sense they were not isolationists; they believed in this “consociation” of churches “namely by way of Synods.” But they go on, “But not a subordination or, surely, not a subjection of the congregations under any higher spiritual authority absolute, save only Christ’s and the Holy Scriptures. They who deny this, maintaining a Diocesan and Provincial (and neither we nor they themselves know what universal) visible political Church both proper and representative, do herein vary from the rule of the gospel.”
6. Of a Catholic, or Universal Church politic, that is endued with power of outward spiritual government. “It is demanded do we deny an universal visible church under the gospel? We answer, Yea. Under the gospel Christ never instituted, nor God, any one Universal visible Church either proper or representative, which ordinarily was to exercise outward spiritual government over all persons through the world professing Christianity. No such church is found in the New Testament.”
7. Of a Provincial Church Independent. “It is marvelled, why we likewise deny, that under the gospel there is any true visible political Church, Provincial or Diocesan; seeing so we shall deny a true visible political church to be now in England, because the English church (as commonly it is holden) is properly a Diocesan and Provincial, or a National visible political church. We answer, for our parts we acknowledge there are many true visible, yea political churches in England in some degree, and in some respect, yet indeed we deny also a National, a Provincial, and Diocesan church under the gospel, to be a true visible political Church (whether we mean the whole body, or the representative part of such churches) though the public practice among us doth hold them for true political churches. The reason why we deny these also, is, because neither any such is found anywhere set down in God’s Word of the New Testament, even like as there is no Universal Church visible political there set down. But only a free congregation, or ordinary Assembly is found in the New Testament, as a little before is showed.”
8. How true visible politic Churches are in England. Here it is shown that though individual churches may be true churches, owing to the system that are in a state of bondage.
9. Of Lord Archbishops and Lord Bishops Diocesan and Provincial. “We believe, that the spiritual office, calling, and power, and administration of Lord Archbishops, and Lord Bishops Diocesan and Provincial, with their inferior hierarchy, is contrary to the Ecclesiastical order, and ordinance of Christ established in the New Testament, and not to be communicated with. The proofs whereof do stand on the grounds of the Article No. 4 before and on those in Article 10 next following after.”
10. The making of ministers. “We believe that the essence of ministers’ calling under the gospel is the congregation’s consent”—a great point is made of bringing in that whole argument again about the Pope which we saw in one of the other quotations.
11. Of our communicating with the parish ministers and parishes in England. “First, we believe that to think we do, or can receive a ministry essentially from a former minister or a prelate (in these days) is an error, and the thing received is a nullity in that respect. Secondly, this receipt in a parish minister with us maketh not a nullity of the ministry in him in every respect besides; that is, it maketh not void all trueness of ministry in him.” That is a part of the argument for saying why they could occasionally go to a service in the parish church. They were drawing this distinction between recognizing that a man was a godly man, and preached the Truth, and the system to which he belonged. So they could go to a service with him occasionally, but they would do so in a way which made it quite clear that they did not believe in nor accept the system of which he was a part.
12. Touching plurality pastors and non-residents. This deals with the question of the plurality of pastors and non-residents. They assert that such are “directly contrary to the order of God in the Gospel; And therefore that now they are simply unlawful; and likewise deputed and substituted Pastors by private authority, such as Curates are. And mere Lecturers are little better.”
13. The question of discipline and censures is here dealt with: “We believe that true administering of the holy censures to be by the congregations’ consent also. And therefore not to be lawfully done by an absolute Diocesan or Provincial authority; that is, if it be without any necessary concurrence or consent of that congregation, which it chiefly concerneth.”
14. Touching the number of Pastors in each Church: and of the Pastor’s ordinary power and authority in managing the Church’s spiritual affairs and government. It is said that there should be at least one pastor in each church; there may be more, but there should be at least one; and as we have seen already they believe also in having elders and deacons.
15. Touching the profane and scandalous mixtures of people in the congregation. “We believe concerning mixtures of the open profane with some manifest godly Christians in a visible church, though at once it doth not destroy essentially, nor make void the holiness of that whole Assembly, yet truly it putteth that whole Assembly into a most dangerous and desperate estate by such their confusion, and by such extreme peril of further infection, especially if they do long tolerate the same among them.” Because of the danger to their souls the people are expected to leave such churches. That is the argument, you see, for a pure church.
16. Of traditions human. These they denounced and would not have for the reasons already given in a previous quotation.
17. Of traditions Apostolic. “We believe that every ordinance or institution apostolic (and that must unto us out of the Holy Scripture be proved) is divine, that is to say, of Divine authority, instituted of God, simply unchangeable by men, and such, that of right it ought to be used perpetually and universally among Christians, unless God Himself (by His own work) do let it, or make it void.”
18. Of prophecy, as the Apostle calleth it. “We believe that the sober, discreet, orderly, and well governed exercise of expounding and applying the Scriptures in the Congregation, by the Apostle called Prophesying, and allowed expressly by him to any understanding member of the church (but women) is lawful now, convenient, profitable, yea sometime very necessary also in diverse respects.” In other words, a man who shows that he has got a gift is allowed to exercise it that way, but not women.
19. Of the reading of homilies in the church. “We believe that with us the reading of homilies in divine service is not lawful, but very unmeet for the congregation of the faithful; namely where it is held for competent without the employment of a preaching pastor.” You see, if they did that instead of having a preaching pastor it is wrong. “Whereas a Pastor’s diligent, discreet, and judicious preaching, and applying of God’s Word, is the power of God unto salvation ordinarily. Neither doth every of the allowed Homilies in every point contain good doctrine.”
20. Of Christ’s descending into hell. Jacob had had a controversy over that with a bishop about the year 1600, and in this Confession he makes his position clear with respect to that, namely that it simply means that our Lord was at that point under the power of death.
21. Deals with prayer. “We believe concerning prayer: that though every form of prayer prescribed by men be not absolutely nor simply a sin, neither (as we judge) an Idol, nor an invention of man, nor a transgression of the Second Commandment; yet we constantly avouch and profess a prescribed Liturgy, or a Book of Common Prayer by commandment enforced upon a whole church rightly constituted, to be used still in the very same words whenever they assemble (in comparison of other praying) is not so profitable but rather hurtful in many users of it, as making holy zeal, true piety, sincere godliness, and other gifts of God’s Spirit in many of them to languish. The New Testament toucheth no such matter, neither troubleth itself with endeavouring on uniformity in this point, but leaveth all churches herein to their godly liberty, wisdom, understanding, and diligent consideration of themselves,” etc.
22. Of holy days so-called. “Now we believe that under the gospel there is not any holy day (besides the Lord’s Day) nor any fasting day, or days constant, ordinary, and on certain seasons or times of the year continually to be observed.” You can see the obvious thrust of that.
23. Of marriage and burying, and churching, as it is called. “Concerning making of marriage and burying the dead, we believe that they are no actions of a Church Minister (because they are no actions spiritual) but civil. Neither are ministers called to any such business; Neither is there so much as one example of any such practice in the whole Book of God either under the Law, or under the gospel, without which warrant we believe it to be unlawful whatsoever any minister doth attempt at any time, or in any place, especially as a part of his ministerial office, and function.” That may come as a surprise, but that is their teaching with regard to that.
24. Of ministers also made magistrates by the State. This is denounced as unlawful and “contrary to the Text of the New Testament.”
25. Of the gifts and offerings of the faithful. It is an encouragement to people to bring free-will offerings. Tithes are not altogether condemned. This subject is also partly dealt with in the next point.
26. Of tithes, and the pastor’s fittest, and due and necessary maintenance. “We believe that tithes for the pastor’s maintenance under the gospel are not the just and due means thereof. Howbeit yet we do not think these tithes absolutely unlawful if they remain voluntary.” They prefer the voluntary system which has been dealt with in number twenty-five and encourage the people, as the Scriptures teach, to put their gifts aside on the first day and to take them and offer them to the minister.
27. Of the civil magistrate’s duty, and charge to oversee and order his churches in spiritual matters. “We believe that we and all true visible churches ought to be overseen, and kept in good order, and peace, and ought to be governed (under Christ) both supremely, and also subordinately by the Civil Magistrate: yea in causes of religion when need is.” Here again is a very important point of distinction between these Independents and the Separatists who took a very different view of this matter. Later these Independents came to the same view as the Separatists, who saw this point before the Independents saw it. We must be accurate about these matters, and the Independents only came to it afterwards.
This section continues: “By which rightful power of his, he ought to cherish and prefer the godly, and religious; and to punish the untractable and unreasonable. Howbeit yet always but civilly. And therefore we from our heart most humbly do desire that our gracious sovereign king would (himself or through a Magistrate) in clemency take this special oversight, and government of us, to whose ordering and protection we most humbly commit ourselves, acknowledging that because we want the use of this divine ordinance, That therefore most great, and infinite evils both to us, and even to the whole kingdom doth ensue, and also because of the spiritual Lords their government over us. And notwithstanding the spiritual lords do think it an injury and wrong to themselves not small if the King should substitute Civil Magistrates to this business, yet that is God’s own ordinance.” You see the distinction they are drawing; they will take discipline from a civil magistrate but not from an ecclesiastical one. “If the king should substitute civil magistrates to this business, yet that is God’s own ordinance; and to do otherwise, namely to commit either spiritual or civil government (namely, diocesan or provincial) to Ministers of the Word, is evil, and (as we believe) a direct transgression of the text of the gospel above rehearsed in Articles 4, 10, and 24.” I am simply reporting, and not expressing my own opinion.
28. “Touching the necessity that lieth upon us to obey Christ rather than man in our using of the true and in refusing the contrary ecclesiastical ordinances above specified.” In other words, this last article enforces the application of the preceding points.
Jacob’s Message
That, then, is the story. The church was constituted, Henry Jacob was appointed as the pastor, so he published these articles in order to justify what they were doing and to clear themselves from the charge of schism. So the church began and flourished. Jacob was with them until 1624 when he left and went to Virginia in America where he died the following year. He was followed by a succession of godly men, and this was actually the first Independent or Congregational chapel or church that was formed in this country which had a continuous unbroken history.
After the time of the Commonwealth, and still more after 1662, there was a change in certain vital respects and the Independents became true Separatists or Free Churchmen.
To me, as I said at the beginning, all this is of real interest because it shows us how these men were feeling their way to what they felt was the teaching of God’s Word, and Christ’s will, in these matters. And it is just there, I feel, that it has a real message for us. It is surely a warning to us, therefore, to read the history again, to be sure of our facts, and not to make sweeping generalizations about “the Puritans said” this or that. Let us try to be sure that we know what we are saying, and that we are accurate in what we are saying as far as we can be.
Second, it is a warning to us against rigidity. Let us try to emulate these men in this at any rate. Let us search the Scriptures, let us keep our minds open, let us listen to what others have got to say, and let us recognize that, though we do not understand this, there is obviously a human element in all these matters. Some men seem to be able to leap to the true position in one leap as it were, others have to go through steps and stages. To me one of the great lessons I have learned as the result of reading all this once more is that we must be patient with one another, that we must remember that men who are equally honest may differ. We must ever remember what the Apostle Paul presses upon the attention of the Church at Corinth, namely, that there are strong and weak brethren, in every respect practically, in connection with the Christian life; and that it behooves us all to be patient with one another, to try to help one another, and not at any time to quarrel with one another or have bitter feelings toward those who differ. Recognizing that these men, who went into all this so thoroughly, took so much time, and had to go wearily through these various stages, let us who are in an age when these matters are all being raised once more in an acute way, and who will be called upon to take various decisions of some sort or another in the immediate future, let us try to learn something from this story of Henry Jacob and the first Congregational Church which will be of help and of encouragement to us. May God bless us to that end.