considered, by their successors, erroneous views respecting the composition of the eldership. Browne, Barrowe, Johnson, Ainsworth, and even Robinson, regarded the offices of pastor, teacher, and elder, as distinct offices. It is not difficult to perceive how this opinion originated, neither is it a matter of very great importance except as affecting the internal independency of the church. Smyth appears to have been the first to have had a clear conception of the erroneousness of the views entertained in common, both by puritans and independents, on this point. "The triformed presbytery," he says, "consisting of three kinds of elders, namely, pastors, teachers, rulers, is none of God's ordinance, but man's device; and the lay-elders, so called, are anti-christian."* In another passage, however, Smyth seems to resolve all offices into one. Commenting on Romans xii. 6—8, where the apostle was thought by some to speak of pastors, teachers, rulers, deacons, and widows, as distinct officers, Smyth observes, "That is denied to be the true resolution of the place; for although there be five several actions repeated, yet doth it not follow that there are five several officers to perform those actions; for one person may perform them all, and yet be no officer, namely, teach, exhort, rule, distribute, show mercy. 1 Cor. xiv. 3, 26, 31; Rom. xii. 13; 1 Cor. v. 5." To this Ainsworth replies, with his accustomed ability, "Behemoth is so big that ‘he trusteth he can draw up Jordan into his mouth,' etc. His explication, however, is not satisfactory. Smyth's * A Defence of the Holy Scriptures, Worship, and Ministry used in the Christian Churches separated from Antichrist, &c., by H. Ainsworth (1609). † Ibid. main points remained untouched. In successive periods they elicited further discussion, and were at last received by the Independents generally as correct. Jacob was the first to limit the officers of the church to two classes, bishops and deacons ; but the "triformed presbytery" retained its hold on the Independent churches generally, until the close of the seventeenth century.* Other controversies besides these arose amongst the exiles in these unsettled times; but as they were of minor and temporary importance we pass them over. Those we have mentioned deserve a place in the records of Independency, inasmuch as they had great influence in modifying the views of the Independents of later times, and are still worthy of the serious study of all parties, who would understand the principles of a scriptural church polity. This *See Harmer's Miscellaneous Works, pp. 193-197. matter is not of much importance in relation to a church's independency, however important in other respects. In relation to a church's independency, the question is-Have the officers power to act without or against the church's consent; not How many kinds of officers are there. Some have thoughtlessly said that Robinson and the Independents of this period were presbyterians, because of their practice in relation to this subject. Such parties forget the adage, verba valent nummi—words are like coin, and bear value according to the stamp. Presbyterianism gives power to presby teries over churches. CHAPTER II. INDEPENDENCY IN ENGLAND, FROM THE DEATH OF WHITGIFT TO THE FORMATION OF HENRY JACOB'S CHURCH, IN LONDON. 1603-1616. WHILE the controversies of which we have given a brief account in the last chapter were pending in Holland, important events occurred in England, to which we now direct the reader's attention. Archbishop Whitgift died in February, 1603, and was succeeded in the following year by a man of kindred spirit, whose brief administration of ecclesiastical affairs was quite as inimical to liberty as that of his predecessor. Bancroft received his appointment, it is said, on account of his deep-rooted enmity to the puritans and nonconformists, and his Elizabethan spirit in all matters pertaining to the church. One of his first acts was to procure a decision of the twelve judges that it was lawful to enforce subscription, and to punish the puritans and others who petitioned against that, or any other supposed grievance ;* and no sooner was he thus armed with legal power, than the work of persecution went on under his direction with increased severity. "Our puritans go down on all sides”—“The poor puritans are ferreted out of all corners" -was the language of the courtiers of the * Vaughan, i. 139. day, who looked on and sometimes wondered what these oppressions might lead to. In 1605, about three hundred of the clergy were "deprived;" while during the same time, according to one whose testimony may be relied on in this matter, more churches were beautified and repaired than had been in many years before." But for the growing opposition of parliament, it is not easy to say where the clearing process would have terminated. The parties who were thus expelled from the church of England, were some of her most able and devoted ministers. In doctrine, they were nearly all evangelical or Calvinistic; while in respect to polity and worship they were somewhat divided. All of them objected to popish ceremonies; but some went farther than others in the principles on which they refused to comply with the terms of subscription. They were divided in the last respect into two classes, namely, rigid puritans, and moderate puritans. The "moderate puritans" constituted at this time the larger class; although, as years rolled by and persecution continued, many of these became more decided in their views and joined the others. Generally speaking, the moderate puritans limited their objections to the surplice, the cross in baptism, and other matters of custom and rite. is contrary," said they, "to God's word to use such ceremonies in the worship of God as man hath devised, if they be notoriously known to have been abused unto idolatry or superstition." The writings of this party were freely canvassed by the "It * Offer of a Conference, etc, Dedication. Hanbury, i. 126—128. † Heylin's Hist. of Presbyterianism, p. 376. conforming clergy and the ecclesiastical rulers of the day, no doubt because they seldom went to the root of the matter in their objections to the established order of things. Bishop Morton,* Dr. Burgess, and some other high church advocates, undertook to enter into the lists of controversy with them, and not always without some appearance of success. The "rigid puritans" were men of another stamp. They took their stand on well-defined principles; and though too willing to remain in the establishment, could they have done so without dishonour, were sufficiently enlightened and conscientious to make great advances in succeeding years. They acknowledged the churches of the establishment as true visible churches; but regarded the Scriptures as the only rule in all matters pertaining to religion, and declared it to be "a sin to force any Christian to do any act of religion that could not be warranted by the same.” They also held that a church is an assembly of true believers, which should be free from all external ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and empowered to choose its own officers.† They were, in fact, Congregational Independents; and the very name of Independent originated with one of their own number. There was scarcely a single point on which they differed from the exiles in Holland. This circumstance is one of great interest, and proves to how great an extent the * This bishop had the honour of "confirming" Richard Baxter, when a boy, and of inspiring him with an early repugnance to that episcopal ceremony, by the slovenly manner in which he performed it. Third Defence of Nonconformity, p. 40. + Price's History of Nonconformity, vol. i. pp. 505, 506; Bradshaw's English Puritanisme. This work was put into Latin by Ames, in 1610, and afterwards appeared with his name, in 1641. |