In 1641, Thomas Edwards observed that “the Great and Present Controversie of these Times is about the Church, and Church Government” and remarked that “our Controversie may fitly be tearmed the Disciplinary Controversie.”Footnote 1 These statements accurately reflect the religious climate of the initial years of the revolution in England, when ecclesiastical polity emerged as an explosive issue and became the focus of an intense pamphlet war.Footnote 2 Yet the puritan minister also reminded his readers that “these contentions and opinions make us forget the proper causes of God, and that maine building up of one another, which is in faith and love” and drew attention to the “practise of godliness” and the necessity of “Reformation of this Church, in Government, Ministery, Ceremonies, and worship.”Footnote 3 As a champion of Presbyterian church government, Edwards would have heartily cast a vote of confidence for an influential Scottish minister, Alexander Henderson who closely linked that ecclesiastical polity with the furthering of “practise of godliness” and “Ministery” when he joined the ecclesiological fray of early 1640s. Borrowing the words of a fellow Scotsman, Henderson maintained that there was no other place except in the Reformed church established on Presbyterian discipline where “the doctrine foundeth not more purely, the worship of God is exercised more uncorruptly; where more faithfull diligence of the Pastors doth flourish, or more free and willing obedience is given by the people.”Footnote 4 This concern for piety conjoined with church government was also shown by the Independent ministers. Yet they parted company from their Presbyterian counterparts in one important respect. In late 1643, Thomas Goodwin and his colleagues were of the opinion that the “Government” of “Reformed Churches” had not “advanced” the “power of godlinesse and the profession thereof” to the extent commensurate to biblical expectation.Footnote 5 In other words, there was something amiss in the Presbyterian polity of Reformed churches when it came to furthering the cause of spiritual devotion. Instead, the Independent ministers placed their preferred Congregational model on the pedestal as most conducive for safeguarding piety, the “received principles of Christianity,” and proper “manners and conversation.”Footnote 6 The Independent pamphlet Syons Prerogative Royal likewise confidently noted that the task of “Reforming a Church” was best accomplished by restoring the church as it had been received “from the Apostles,” and what this entailed was a return to a Congregational church.Footnote 7 Representing the tip of the iceberg, these assertions are illustrative of a wider set of arguments developed by the Presbyterians and Independents early in the revolutionary decade both to demonstrate the interconnectedness of ecclesiology and piety and to win public opinion over to their respective positions.
The early years of 1640s witnessed a surge of publications on church government to a degree not repeated for the remainder of the decade. These offer the historian an opportunity to assess an issue that embroiled Presbyterian and Independent polemicists in a decade of conflict.Footnote 8 Just a quick glance at the religious works that rolled off the press during this time reveals that some of the leading figures took up the cause of their preferred ecclesiastical polities. They included such proponents of Independency as Goodwin and Henry Burton and leading advocates of Presbyterianism including Edwards and Stephen Marshall.Footnote 9 It may be worth briefly noting in this respect that due to hesitancy on the part of the godly for in-house quarrelling during this time, many of the Independent and Presbyterian tracts on church government were published anonymously or authored by people from abroad.Footnote 10 In studying the writings of these men, historians have generally focused on church structure. That is, the conflict which progressively pulled the two leading camps of the puritan community apart was seen to spring primarily or even exclusively from variant views of ecclesiastical system of governance.Footnote 11 It is recognized here that such a take on intra-puritan conflict is justified to a significant extent, not least because the major portion of the writings did address issues of high ecclesiology such as categories of church offices and of governing councils or constitutive makeup of a church congregation. As Goodwin and his colleagues indicated, tensions over these issues resulted more fundamentally from differing interpretations of “the first Apostolique directions, pattern and examples of those Primitive Churches recorded in the New Testament” pertaining to church polity.Footnote 12 Still what this article seeks to draw attention to is that discussions on these issues were interweaved with discourses on piety. Hence one finds that the Presbyterian and Independent polemicists frequently intermixed discussions on ecclesiology proper with ideas on piety or more precisely, on how ecclesiastical system promoted the spiritual wellbeing of people sitting in the pews. In other words, the “function” of church government alongside its “nature” and “framework” received a significant level of attention.
This contemporary interest in ecclesiology and piety has been sustained by several recent historians from varying perspectives. In a study of Presbyterianism of pre-revolutionary England, Polly Ha, for instance, shows that Presbyterian ministers and their lay supporters were keen to bolster ecclesiastical discipline to encourage “religious observance” and “moral reform.”Footnote 13 The revolutionary years are covered by Elliot Vernon, who examines various facets of religious activity of the 1640s and 1650s to bring to light a vibrant Presbyterian campaign for spiritual and moral renewal. This reflected the “puritan ambition to refashion the parishes into reforming institutions where ‘heart religion,’ rather than cold, formalist profession, would predominate.”Footnote 14 Similarly Geoffrey Nuttall argues that the Independents' concept of “separation” for voluntary “fellowship” was designed in many ways to create the necessary “freedom” to “foster . . . visible saints.”Footnote 15 Therefore as Paul Lim rightly observes, both Presbyterians and Independents believed that “true communion of saints and discipline were inextricably woven together into the fabric of a nation truly Reformed.”Footnote 16
This article seeks to build on the studies of above historians by adding new perspectives to them based on a rereading of the ecclesiastical pamphlets of early 1640s. The arguments of the historians that the Presbyterians and Independents were attentive to the piety of ordinary people are recognized, and more specifically that their respective ecclesiastical polities were viewed as conducive to the cause of consolidating that piety and moral discipline. Against this backdrop, this article recognizes that further consideration needs to be given to the extent to which such an understanding of the function of ecclesiastical polities was displayed from the early years of the English Revolution as well as the extent to which this proved to be a source of conflict. This study will seek to demonstrate that the discourses linking polity with piety was relatively well developed at this early stage of the revolution and that such a linkage was more tightly maintained than historians have hitherto appreciated, both at the theoretical and polemical level prior to its translation to practice during the Interregnum. Such an analysis, it is hoped, also remedies the relative neglect of the standard narratives of the religion of Civil War England like those of William Shaw and Alexander Drysdale who heavily favored the ecclesiastical systemFootnote 17 as well as some of the more recent works on early modern puritanism which tend to keep ecclesiology and piety in separate compartments of analysis.Footnote 18 The findings of such a study will also show that the Presbyterians and the Independents were in tune with the ongoing puritan program of reformation for the society at large and more importantly that the dispute over how that vision was to be realized by means of constructing a polity conducive to piety added fuel to the fire of the prevailing conflict over ecclesiology proper, even if there were areas of agreement over the same issue as we shall also see. Such conflict was a reflection of the commitment of Presbyterians and Independents for their respective vision of reformation for the country. More broadly, this article shows a facet of religious controversy that ultimately led to the disintegration of the godly community, which in turn significantly weakened the base of support for the Commonwealth and the Protectorate.
I. Ecclesiastical Polity and Piety
The Presbyterian ecclesiastical polity was constituted by four interlocking councils or assemblies of governance. These included the consistory or weekly session, presbytery or classis, provincial synod, and national synod or general assembly. While it remained the major preoccupation of the Presbyterian pamphleteers to legitimate such a structure with a resort to detailed scriptural hermeneutics and historical references,Footnote 19 they also carved out space to illustrate how that structure most appropriately heightened godly piety and maintained spiritual discipline. The sphere of responsibility of the governing assemblies as envisioned by their defenders tended generally to be administrative but also pertained directly and indirectly to the devotional life of the laity, because jurisdictional supervision was part and parcel of pastoral activity.Footnote 20
To begin with, the consistory formed the initial link in the chain of the Presbyterian system of governance. Providing a basic description of the composition and responsibilities of the consistory, Orders for Ecclesiasticall Discipline explained that it was “an Assembly of the Ministers and Elders of every Church, for the government of it, and to watch over the manners and doctrine, and to correct the vices, and encourage the well-doers.”Footnote 21 Similarly, claiming “Apostolicke appointment” for the consistory, Complaints concerning Corruptions asserted that it was made up of a “company of elders” who had “the power of Feeding, Censuring and Ordering the Flocke committed to them.”Footnote 22 The purpose of this spiritual oversight for Forme of Prayers was that the “ministery of Gods word, may be had in reverence, and not brought to contempt.”Footnote 23Defence of Church Government focused more on the jurisdictional activity of the consistory such as “receiving of members, excommunication, election & Deposition of Ministers,” which have either immediate or ancillary relationship with the spiritual life of the laity.Footnote 24Complaints concerning Corruptions sheds light on the corporate nature of the task when it stated that the work of “Jurisdiction and Ordination” was to be performed by “the society, as a common Act, not compatible to any one in particular.” If there were disagreements within the consistory, “recourse” could be had to a “Meeting of the most able Presbyters of the Churches for their determination.”Footnote 25 Hence the consistory's decisions, inclusive of those related to religious observance, were at times shaped by the deliberations of a council that occupied the next rung on the Presbyterian administrative ladder, the presbytery.
As the English and Scottish publications were keen to argue, the presbytery provided a means of assuring doctrinal conformity among ministers and their proper pastoral activity by keeping a close track of both their beliefs and practices. According to Beauty of Godly Government, a presbytery convened “once a fortnight” and was attended by pastors and elders from churches located within an area roughly equal to that of a “Deanry.” The members of the presbytery jointly examined the qualifications of ministerial candidates and the “doctrine and lives of Ministers” and if necessary “proceed[ed] to admonition, suspension, and deprivation” against those ministers it “shall see just cause so to doe.”Footnote 26 Another anonymously published pamphlet titled, An Appeale to Every Impartiall, Judicious, and Godly Reader, exhibited an equal or perhaps a greater concern for the ministry of the Bible. Placing much faith in the “presbyteries,” the pamphlet emphasized that “[t]hese make and ordaine a preaching Ministry, setting over every particular Congregation a fit Pastor, resident and painfull, onely attending his flocke, and wholly giving himselfe unto his Ministry, and not putting off his charge to a Curate.” The use of a curate was not uncommon in early Stuart England, and the author was keen to make a specific reference to a practice that he or she considered unacceptable. Further the pamphlet did not rest content with simply recognizing the ordaining function of presbyteries and noted that these “presse them [pastors] to preach unto their flockes, and therefore to be very carefull.” If the pastors were found to be negligent with this measure in place, then the presbyteries would censure them “for neglect of their duty.”Footnote 27 For Beauty of Godly Government, this disciplinary oversight extended to include “[a]ll other sorts of persons . . . disobedient to their owne Pastors and Elders.” Such “persons” was a reference to the laity, who were to be censured “with great authority” by the presbytery presumably upon an appeal made from the consistory. The pamphlet then explained that “[b]y this wee see how the parochiall government is upheld, and yet kept within bounds, Christs Doctrine and worship kept pure, good Ministers honoured, and the rest eitheir reformed, or cast out.”Footnote 28 The Appeale to Every Impartiall, Judicious, and Godly Reader offered a similar description but more succinctly. At the presbytery, “the life and doctrine, the diligence of Ministers (within the Presbytery) is look'd into, and so the lives and behaviours of their Elders, and the disobedience of anyone to the Session, is with authority censured.”Footnote 29 Adopting a slightly different approach, the Scottish theologian George Gillespie appealed to the practice of the apostles for the legitimacy of presbytery and its spiritual authority by stating that “in the times of the Apostles, the Presbytery which was the ordinary court of jurisdiction, which did ordaine, depose, excommunicate, etc. did consist of so many Pastors and Elders, as could with conveniency meete ordinarily together, which is a paterne and warrant for our classical Presbyteries.”Footnote 30 This multilayered institutional device to assure the viability of preaching is clearly indicative of the Presbyterians' attentiveness to the piety of men and women sitting in the pews.
This basic principle of seeking the decision of a progressively greater number was tacitly recognized by the author of Englands Glory, particularly with reference to the “provinciall Synod.”Footnote 31 Similarly Robert Baillie insisted that the provincial synod was designed to “reforme what the Presbitor either could not, or would not.” Here the Scottish minister's concern with “reforme” had to do primarily with the “cure of those soules,” to whom a pastor ministered.Footnote 32 Like the presbytery, the provincial synod consisted of ministers and elders, and Henderson informed his readers that it convened “ordinarily twice a year” and that one of its principal tasks was to examine each presbytery “by course and enquirie made from the rest, if there bee any knowne scandal, fault, or negligence amongst them, That it may be in a brotherly manner censured.” Henderson added that “all the members of the Presbyteries suffer the like inquirie each one a part by all the rest.”Footnote 33 Thus the supervision of the provincial synod over the presbytery appears to have been meticulous at least in theory, and the reform of the presbytery was necessarily inclusive of the individual parish churches in view of the structural makeup of the Presbyterian polity. As a way of streamlining the Presbyterian system, Ecclesiasticall Discipline of Reformed Churches granted an inclusive power of ecclesiastical governance to the provincial synod so as to prevent an overload of appeals lodged over its head to the national synod. Hence except for a limited number of cases pertaining mainly to “suspensions and depositions” of church officers and to “Doctrine, Sacraments, and the generality of our Discipline,” the provincial synod was to act as the final arbiter in ecclesiastical matters.Footnote 34 With such an arrangement, the provincial synod would have been able to reconsider the decisions of the presbytery and consistory to affect the religious life of people.
The last link in the ascending chain of Presbyterian governing assemblies was the national synod. Referring to it as the “highest Ecclesiasticall Judicatory . . . kept commonly once a year,” Appeale to Every Impartiall, Judicious, and Godly Reader observed that it comprised collectively of “Ministers and Elders, from every Presbytery” and also noted the attendance of “persons of highest place, and of the Nobilities.”Footnote 35 Thus it appears that the national synod was an exception in its composition, as those who did not serve the spiritual office of either a pastor or ruling elder were allowed participation.Footnote 36 The agenda on the table there concerned the entire nation as it had the authority “definitively to decide, resolve and determine all Ecclesiasticall matters” and made “laws Ecclesiasticall agreeing to holy Scripture, for the wel-ordering of all the Churches in spiritual matters.”Footnote 37 The national synod also promoted the cause of godly piety for the common folks, even if more broadly and less directly than the other governing assemblies of the Presbyterian polity. According to Henderson, the national synod looked to it that a “course is taken for planting of Churches, with able Ministers, that the Gospell may be spread through the whole Nation” and also set down rules “by which the inferiour assemblies shall bee directed in all their proceedings.”Footnote 38 On the negative side, the synod exercised the “power of spiritual censures, as excommunication, deposition, and the like, most necessary for the repressing of heresie, errour, obstinacie in wickedness, and scandals, otherwise incorrigible.” Gillespie then went onto explain that this power was “not a Lordly imperious dominiering over the flocke of Christ” but provided a means to maintain spiritual order for the entire nation.Footnote 39
The Independents displayed a decidedly hostile attitude to this multilevel system of ecclesiastical governance considered necessary by the Presbyterians for creating godly individuals and a reformed society. Thus not only ecclesiology proper but also the functional aspect of church government became a source of contention for the two opposing groups. For the Independents, external superstructures such as presbyteries and synods exercising formal jurisdiction over individual congregations was “superfluous and humane” at best and the “Church of God is brought to complete perfection and unity” without them.Footnote 40 In other words as the very name “Independency” suggests, each congregation was autonomous, endowed with plenary powers of administration for the spiritual health of the church.Footnote 41 According to Syons Prerogatives Royal, this meant that a church was empowered “to preach the Word, administer the Sacraments . . . and to exclude all obstinate sinners from all spirituall priviledges.”Footnote 42 This latter feature of ecclesiastical discipline entailed primarily two components. One was “Admonition” and the other, “Excommunication.” Apologeticall Narration explained that the church employed such disciplinary measures against sinful “manners and conversation” contravening the dictates of the “light of nature” and the “received practices of Christianity” or against “opinions” which are “contrary to the received principles of Christianity.”Footnote 43 Hence discipline had in its purview both doctrine and conduct.
This administration of spiritual discipline was not the exclusive preserve of the eldership. Rather it was to be a cooperative enterprise, since the laity when gathered in an assembly as a congregation was considered to be on par with or even took precedence over the elders in the ecclesiastical sphere. According to the author of Presbyteriall Government Examined, the congregation as a collective entity “primarily and originally” retained the right to “rule and govern the Church.”Footnote 44Syons Prerogatives Royal concurred when it asserted, “All Ecclesiasticall authority primarily, properly, and especially belongeth to the Church, to the Officers instrumentally.”Footnote 45 Moreover leaving this task of administration solely to the elders was “dissonant” to “true faith and pietie” and “consonant unto the Papists implicit faith.”Footnote 46 The tract more specifically asserted that the “privitie and consent” of the ordinary people was necessary to order rightly the life of the church. Here “consent” referred to the congregation's concurrence deemed necessary to validate ruling elders' decisions on, among others, “reproving and censuring of obstinate offenders.”Footnote 47 The theological basis of this collective exercise of judiciary authority was traced back to the biblical text where the concept of “power of binding, and loosing” is recorded. The Independents interpreted that text drawn from chapter 18 of Matthews as Christ bestowing such power to pronounce judgment on erring believers to the “Church or congregation,” and not to the eldership as the Presbyterians maintained.Footnote 48 One also finds that during the debates of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, the Independent members argued that this “power of the keys” was granted not exclusively to Peter or the apostles but to all members of a given congregation.Footnote 49 Although a select leadership of the church may provide the initial guidance “as it is meet the chiefe in the Church should do,” the actual meting out of discipline, the pamphlet argued, was to be by the “multitude” and “by their voting.” The overarching purpose of this discipline was the maintenance of moral and doctrinal purity of the church by “purging out” the “spiritual leven.”Footnote 50
For the proponents of Presbyterianism, such a view of the role of the congregation was less than acceptable for it granted the generality of people excessive powers in the church. Instead, the Presbyterian polemicists were of the opinion that the congregation should normally limit itself to a complementary function, extending moral support to ministerial officers by closing ranks around them and rendering the necessary cooperation. In its “generall Admonition to the people,” Orders for Ecclesiasticall Discipline clarified their obligations toward the church minister. They were to “receive him willingly, as sent of God, bearing him honour and reverence, in regard of his Charge, the which he executeth towards you.” Then the pamphlet changed tack and took on a serious tone to warn them not to “murmur against him, or against his Ministery in any sort whatsoever, for the Lord will not leave unpunished the contempt of his servants, and much lesse the murmuring and rash rebellion against their persons: As the horrible examples that may be seene in the Scriptures doe plainly testifie.” After this stern warning, the pamphlet returned to the earlier exhortative tone to remind them of their obligation to “pray unto God for him, to this end that he may execute the office God hath called him unto in all wisdom and faithfulnesse, referring all to Gods glory, and the edification of his Church, whereof he hath charge.”Footnote 51
If the preceding instruction was designed to pave the way for effective ministry by all officers of the church, the following directive issued by the same tract was reserved exclusively for the “Minister of the Word.” The parishioners needed to pray for him “much more carefully . . . in regard that his charge is of so great importance, as well for the glory of God, as for the salvation of us all.” The purpose of the prayer was that “speech may be given him and a mouth opened in all boldnesse to make known the secret of the Gospell, and to speak frankly as it behoveth him to speake.” Moreover the parishioners were enjoined to provide for “corporall things,” that is for the material needs of the minister.Footnote 52 A similar line of reasoning is discernible in John Milton's, Of Reformation. The pamphlet reminded the readers that a “Minister whose Calling and end is spirituall, ought to be honour'd as a Father and Physitian to the Soule . . . with a Son like and Disciple like reverence.” If a worthy minister merited respect, Milton believed that he also “easily command a free and plentifull provision of outward necessaries.”Footnote 53 Hence how the lay members of the church configured their relationship with the ecclesiastical officers set over them formed an important component of the unimpeded operation of the Presbyterian system, particularly its extending of spiritual provisions to them.
The role of the congregation was not limited entirely to offering moral and complementary support to church ministers, however. Even if subject to the administrative oversight of the elders, the congregation was granted at least one important formal responsibility impacting the life of the church. This had to do with election of ministers and incidentally formed an area of debate where the Presbyterians and Independents were of like mind. As alluded to earlier, Forme of Prayers clarified that after the elders examined a pastoral candidate, the electoral procedure provided for “eight days at the least” for the parishioners to scrutinize his “life and manners” prior to giving “consent” to his selection.Footnote 54 Similarly Henderson noted that the “people also are demanded, whether they will receive” a ministerial candidate as “their Pastor.”Footnote 55 Marshall and his colleagues maintained that such “power either of chusing worthy Priests, or rejecting the unworthy” was “derived from Divine Authority.”Footnote 56 Likewise the Independent minister John Cotton explained that the congregation “hath power from Christ to choose, and call her own Officers” and elucidated that it can “send for any of them for her service to inquire and heare and assist in the Judgment of all publicke scandalls.”Footnote 57Syons Prerogative Royal approvingly referred to the purported views of Protestant reformers such as Huldrych Zwingli and Martin Luther who reserved the right of “Calling the Ministers of the Gospel; or, if they cease to be faithful to depose them” to the individual church.Footnote 58 For Henderson, the casting of the final vote of confidence by the congregation for a pastoral candidate was preceded by an opportunity for “any person or persons” to lodge an objection with the presbytery against the “literature, doctrine, or life of such a man.” Such a scrupulous process presupposed a great weight placed upon effective ministry leading to spiritual improvement, as the Scots minister himself noted how the same process enabled the people to “have the greater assurance” of a pastor's “gifts of edification” and ultimately to “submit themselves unto his Ministery.”Footnote 59
If the scope of congregational power was generally a source of contention for the Independents and Presbyterians, then the related issue of congregational autonomy was also contested. For reasons discussed above, the Presbyterians were convinced that a multilevel system of governance where individual churches were subject to oversight councils was indispensable to safeguarding religious life in the parishes. In Reasons against Independent Government, Edwards noted that devoid of the activities of a synod for “edification, for Peace, and order . . . as a speciall remedy for preventing and healing of divisions,” the “Independant Government” will see “many cases fall out where there is no other remedy but separation, separation being indeed the remedy of Separation.”Footnote 60 Perhaps this was one of the reasons why Defence of Church Government accorded not only ministers or elders but also “any other, even the least member of the Church” the right to “repaire unto the Classis or Synod” for redress if the “faith and manners” of a parish church were found to be questionable.Footnote 61 In effect, these Presbyterian tracts were highlighting a perceived weakness of Independency where its congregational autonomy denoted an absence of any institutional mechanism to keep a congregation on the right spiritual track when it opted to embrace error.
The Independents begged to differ however, because for them the autonomy of an individual church did not necessarily imply weakened spiritual unity and discipline. The two main aspects of exercising such autonomy pertained to administration of discipline by a church against its own erring members and by a group of churches against an erring church. As alluded to earlier, a congregation could take measures of increasing severity against a member or members found to be at fault. As Henry Burton observed, a congregation had “Christs Law to regulate them” in this process. That law guided believers “by love to serve one another” when administering ecclesiastical sanctions.Footnote 62 Moreover as indicated by Cotton, the ultimate purpose of church discipline was restorative and not merely punitive. It was designed to bring the erring member back to orthodox belief and practice, with the added objective of “removall of scandalls out of the Church.”Footnote 63 The same basic procedure was retained when dealing with the collective error of a church. Several churches would confer with and counsel an erring church so as to “prevent the spreading either of Gangreene of Heresie, or of the Leprosie of sin.”Footnote 64 For both instances, excommunication was to be a last resort measure after which the congregation withdrew fellowship entirely from the unrepentant member or the churches from the wayward church. The Independents appear to have tacitly recognized that simultaneously maintaining congregational autonomy and church discipline was a difficult balancing act, but they regarded the two as mutually complementary rather than as incompatible modes of ecclesiastical practice.
If the Presbyterians and Independents exhibited not just a difference of temperature but a clash of principles over ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the attendant issue of piety, a similar level of dissension can be observed over the related question of church composition. As can be inferred from our previous discussion, an overarching presupposition of Presbyterian polity constituted by local consistories, regional presbyteries, provincial synods, and national synod was the legitimacy of the state church. What this entailed was the acceptance of the reality of a “mixed” congregation, where true believers and the unconverted worshipped together in parish churches across the country. Thus notwithstanding conciliatory gestures from the Independents that they countenanced fellowship with people belonging to a state church, the Presbyterians refused to accommodate the idea of a church made up of only “visible saints.”Footnote 65 For instance, John Geree insisted on the legitimacy of a national Presbyterian church where its straying members were exhorted to “repent” and to “rectifie” so as to remove the need for “separating the few” to form a gathered church.Footnote 66 For Goodwin and his colleagues by contrast, the gathering of believers who voluntarily subscribed to church membership and discipline was vital, because without maintaining a “difference from carnall and formall Christians,” the church could not vouchsafe the “power of godliness and the profession thereof.”Footnote 67 This meant that there was no room in the church for the unconverted and the “worldly.” Presbyteriall Government Examined also exhibited this concern for the purity of the church as it related to its spiritual wellbeing when it demanded that potential members to a church render a testimony of their newfound faith not only to the elders but also before the congregation. An insistence on this procedure found its rationale in the Independents' belief that congregational piety was significantly affected by “consociation” with converts introduced to the church for the first time. These converts once regarded as “enemies” or “at least of strangers” were now to be “reputed brethren in Christ” and together with the rest of the congregation were “to call upon one common Father publiquely to participate of one holy bread.”Footnote 68 Burton elaborated on the idea of congregational partaking of the “holy bread.” For him, “Gods Ordinances” were “profaned” by “profane and ignorant persons comming to the Lords Table” and more importantly, the godly who “communicate with them are guilty of the same prophanation with them.” Burton further explicated that to “communicate with known evill doers which even in their presuming to communicate in the Ordinances, do evil in their doing of evil, is to partake of their evil deeds.”Footnote 69 Hence people aspiring affiliation with an Independent church should be vetted carefully so as to prevent profanation of the sacraments and “mingled” interaction with persons who “walketh disorderly.”Footnote 70
II. Ecclesiastical Officers and Piety
If the question of who constituted the membership of a church and of how it was to be governed threw into sharp relief the areas of disagreement for the Independents and Presbyterians, then the corollary issue of what ecclesiastical offices were mandated by the scripture and of their relationship to the day to day ministry in the church revealed many overlaps for the two groups. In Apologeticall Narration, the beleaguered Independent ministers pleaded their case by reminding the readers that in terms of church officers they “set up no other but the very same which the reformed Churches judge necessary and sufficient.”Footnote 71 Although not without some variations as we shall see, this was generally true since both the Presbyterian and Independent polities were designed to be staffed by four categories of ecclesiastical ministers. Yet again, the Presbyterian and Independent debate waged not just over whether scripture validated the institution of such offices in the church or whether these were also set up by churches of earlier eras, which existing historiography have highlighted hitherto. Instead repeated mention was made to the effect that the teaching elder or pastor, doctor or teacher, ruling elder, and deacon were each assigned clearly defined roles in the life of the church and that they were to cooperate with each other for the consolidation of people's spiritual life. Many of the tasks of the ecclesiastical ministers belonging to the first three categories have been discussed above, since they occupied the seats of the governing assemblies for the Presbyterian church and of the consistory for the Independent church. Still their distinctive tasks as individual ministers affected the rhythms of life of a local church in a way that differed from their work in a corporate setting like a presbytery or synod and thus merit a separate, albeit brief, consideration, especially as those tasks bear upon the puritan vision of spiritual and moral renewal to create godly individuals and a reformed society.Footnote 72
First, the office of a pastor for the Presbyterians was bound up closely with the parish ministry. Henderson explained that Presbyterian polity did not allow a minister “to be a non-resident, or have the charge of more Churches” than his own.Footnote 73 This thinly veiled attack on pluralism directed toward prelacy was also taken up by Ecclesiasticall Discipline of Reformed Churches, when it recommended that ministers “are not to be chosen without appointing and allotting them a certaine Flocke.”Footnote 74 Recognizing that the English church was “united” to other “reformed churches” in their Answer to bishop Hall, Marshall and his four godly colleagues regarded as the “chiefe” task of a “presbyter” the “Edifying of the Church by word and Sacrament” and in this way to “feede the flocke of God.”Footnote 75 The language of a “flocke” as employed by the godly is most likely intended to evoke a prominent biblical image of sheep over which the pastor kept watch as a spiritual shepherd.Footnote 76 Thus for the advocates of Presbyterian polity, the order of the day for pastoral ministry was serving the people in the parish.
More specifically, a pastor should conduct “visitation of families” to see “whether they walk worthy of the Gospel, for setting, and holding up religious exercise” in the homes. This “particular knowledge of the flock,” for Henderson, was indispensable because it helped a pastor deliver the kind of sermons and prayers which struck the right note for the spiritual needs of those to whom he ministered.Footnote 77Orders for Ecclesiasticall Discipline interestingly included “a Promise particular to the Minister of the Word.” The greater portion of this sort of a pledge to be countenanced by a pastor was taken up with ministry tailored to the varied spiritual needs of the lay people:
You promise that you will deliver the most holy Word, and Sacraments of God, in all faithfulnesse, purenesse, and reverence, that you will take paines in teaching the people which are capable, in convincing those which contradict, in casting downe the the proud, in erecting and lifting up the humble, in bringing againe those that are stayed out of the way, in cutting rightly the word of truth . . . and as a good and wise Steward of the House of the Lord, distributing the spirituall meate as well to every one apart, according to his abilitie, as in common to all the family . . . And for this cause you promise to follow with all care and diligence, all meanes and helps of studie, things proper to execute & honour your said Ministery, which notwithstanding shall be done in all simplicitie and easinesse, as well in words as in sentences, to this end, that the rudest and most unlearned, and the Church may be edified by it. Above all, you shall imploy your selfe in studying the holy Scriptures . . . [that] you may be like a good Father of a Family, who as able to draw out his treasure both old and new things.Footnote 78
Ecclesiasticall Discipline of Reformed Churches even clarified pastoral responsibilities which at first sight might not seem to belong properly to the “spiritual” sphere, when it directed that ministers “are to admonish and exhort their people to keepe modesty and decency in their apparels; they themselves giving them a good example both in this and other things.”Footnote 79 This order is probably better understood against the backdrop of puritan wariness about extravagance and ostentatiousness, as these were not far removed from the sin of vanity that constituted a clear contravention of scriptural teaching.
Another category of ecclesiastical officers was referred to as doctors and schoolmasters, or collectively as teachers. They were the “Professors of Divinity in Universities and Colledges” and “Teachers of the more private and particular Schools,” respectively. Although the early debates of the Assembly of Divines during the latter months of 1643 reveal that its Presbyterian members and the Scottish commissioners exhibited differences of opinion over the precise definition of the teaching office, the functions ascribed to them remained an uncontested issue.Footnote 80 The work of these “academic” officers concerned themselves both directly and indirectly with people's religious life. According to Orders for Ecclesiasticall Discipline, “the office of a Doctor in the Church, is the nearest to a Pastors charge, and it is to explaine the Scriptures, by reading without application, by way of exhortation, and they shall be chosen by the Colloque.”Footnote 81 Likewise Henderson noted that the doctors had the task of prophesying or “mak[ing] the exercise with the Ministers.” Similarly the teachers of private schools were sometimes “imployed by the Ministers to help them, in teaching and Catechising of the people.”Footnote 82 On the administrative side, some of the doctors served as church elders and commissioners to the general assembly, in which capacity they undoubtedly dealt with issues related to the conduct of parishioners.Footnote 83 Hence it was by prophesying, teaching, and exercising jurisdiction that the doctors and schoolmasters involved themselves in the parish ministry. Still these men were principally academic instructors responsible for the intellectual training of students, many of whom made preparations for the ministry. How the future pastors of parish churches would perform thus depended to a significant extent on the quality of instruction received from the officers. The Presbyterian government was especially concerned about the doctors' responsibilities as university professors and kept tabs on what they taught.Footnote 84 The schoolmasters were not free from ecclesiastical supervision, either. A “company of ministers” examined both their “learning” and “life,” so that “by evill doctrine they doe not bring in some sect into the Church” and that they set “an example to their Schollers.”Footnote 85
Relative to the scope of responsibilities of the two ecclesiastical offices discussed above, the Independents generally spoke the same language as their Presbyterian counterparts. As such, only a brief discussion of Independent views on the offices of a pastor and a teacher will suffice. In his Doctrine of the Church reprinted in England in 1642, Cotton explained succinctly that a pastor is “to attend upon Exhortation, and therein to dispence a word of wisedome.”Footnote 86 In the same pamphlet, the New England minister dwelt somewhat extensively on the qualities of a pastor, no doubt because these formed the prerequisites to ministerial competence in the parish. Thus a pastor, as well as a teacher and ruling elder, “must be in himself a blamelesse man for Holinesse, and Righteousnesse, and for freedome from passions and lusts, also a vigilant man, and of good behavior. Moreover, he must been in his Family a man of good Government, and of good Hospitality; in his Name a man of good Report even of those that are without; in his Profession not a young Plant, but holding fast the faithfull Word, apt to teach it, and able to maintaine it.”Footnote 87
Syons Prerogative Royal remarked that it was incumbent upon the pastors that they “looked every one to the health of his owne Flocke.”Footnote 88 Furthermore like the Presbyterians, the advocates of Independency were critical of various features of Episcopacy and its religious practice. With strong aversion to liturgy with “set formes,” the authors of Apologeticall Narration placed a high premium on “meditations and study” by individual ministers “out of their own gifts” for preparation for both public prayer and sermons. Thus it was a pastor's duty to be well prepared and that in a more “spontaneous” and “inspired” manner for the benefit of those ministered by them. Somewhat ironically, the Independents found their views on the office of the teacher closer to those of the Scottish commissioners than many English Presbyterians. The latter did not consider teachers to be “ordinary and distinct” from a pastor, “in every particular congregation,” whereas the Independents and men like Henderson and Gillespie believed teachers to constitute an ecclesiastical office in its own right as distinct from a pastor.Footnote 89 Cotton distinguished the duties of a teacher from those of a pastor by highlighting that the former is “to attend upon Doctrine, and therein to dispence a word of knowledge.”Footnote 90 It is therefore safe to assume that the Independents may have believed that a distinct category of the teaching office better served the piety of people than a single individual fulfilling both pastoral and teaching responsibilities.
The advocates of Presbyterian polity also devoted much space to the explication of the function of officers other than the pastor or teacher. Especially, the ruling, or lay, elder and his biblically assigned role proved highly relevant to the viability of that polity. As elucidated by William Abbott, the collaboration of clerical teaching elders and lay ruling elders proved successful in Presbyterian polities in early modern New England and Scotland.Footnote 91 The same general observation probably can be made of Presbyterian churches on the continent.Footnote 92 But the English people lacked familiarity with, though not necessarily cognizance of, lay eldership in the early 1640s. Still Presbyterian polemicists did not hesitate to speak their minds on the subject to their English audience, perhaps confident that given time it would succeed in England just as it did in other Reformed regions. At any rate, they presented a fairly well developed case for lay eldership as it related to the parish life. For Henderson, a key task of ruling elders was assisting the pastor in “visiting the sick . . . admonishing all men of their duty . . . causing the acts of the assemblies, as well particular as general, to be put into execution.”Footnote 93 Another task that was more independent yet still complementary to the pastor's activity was that just as the “pastor should be diligent in teaching and sowing the seed, so are the Elders desired to be carefull in seeing and seeking the fruits in the people.”Footnote 94 Speaking the same language as his Scottish colleague, Gillespie explained that the ruling elders were to “instruct the ignorant,” “exhort the negligent,” “comfort the afflicted,” “support the weake,” “restore him that falleth,” “visite the sicke,” “reconcile those who are at variance,” and “contend for the truth.”Footnote 95
According to Henderson, the “principall” function of ruling elders was to join with the pastor for “exercising of discipline, and governing the whole Congregation” presumably to maintain the spiritual health of the church.Footnote 96Defence of Church Government concurred when it succinctly declared that a ruling elder “ordaine Officers, admit to the Sacraments, admonish and censure offenders, according to Christs rule of discipline.”Footnote 97 We find in Ecclesiastical Discipline of Reformed Churches a delineation of these interconnected pastoral and disciplinary responsibilities of a ruling elder when it observed that they were “to be watchfull over the Flocke together with the Pastors, and to see the people gathered, that every one come to and be present at the holy Congregations, make report of the scandals and faults, take knowledge and Judge thereof with the Pastours.”Footnote 98 Commenting on their relationship, Forme of Prayers remarked that when “assembling the people, neither they [ruling elders] without the Ministers, nor the Ministers without them, may attempt anything.”Footnote 99 The scope of these activities suggests that the lay ruling elders did not necessarily play second fiddle to the ordained pastors and that the Presbyterian system expected the two ecclesiastical ministers to build a close rapport for the work of ministry.Footnote 100
The Independents also accepted the office of a ruling elder as legitimated by Scriptural mandate. Yet for them, the ruling elder was not a lay but an “Ecclesiastique” person and thus parted company with the Presbyterians over the question of his precise function.Footnote 101 According to Presbyteriall Government Examined, “All received into the colledg, and company of Elders, even those which are called governers, should be apt to teach, and able to exhort with sound doctrine, and convince gainsesayers . . . in the publick assemblie.”Footnote 102 Besides this duty to instruct, the elders shouldered the usual administrative responsibilities such as “admission of Members,” “ordination of Officers,” and “excommunication of notorious and obstinate offenders.”Footnote 103 The Independent polemicists therefore refused to distinguish ruling elders from pastors or teaching elders at least in terms of their overall ecclesiastical function. Moreover Presbyteriall Government Examined emphasized that the ruling elders' responsibilities were not to be confined exclusively to the consistory “privately” but had “publick assemblie” in their purview, because the eldership was a “publick office.”Footnote 104 This emphasis on the public nature, as we have seen, is better understood in light of the Independents' insistence on the corporate nature of ecclesiastical authority whereby the congregation in its entirety participated actively in the responsibilities that remained generally the preserve of the ruling elders in the Presbyterian scheme of governance. Therefore unlike the Presbyterian system, it was incumbent upon both the preaching and ruling elders of an Independent congregation to preach and govern for the benefit of the generality of the people.
The last of the four categories of officers was given the designation, “deacon.” Except for the Independents' insistence that the office of widows be subsumed under the umbrella office of the deacon, no serious disagreement appeared over its definition and scope of responsibilities.Footnote 105 Henderson furnished a concise description of what was expected of them: “Their main duty, is to collect, receive, and distribute, not onely the almes, for the poore, but the whole Ecclesiasticall goods, which are not assigned and appointed, for the maintenance of particular persons.” Thus the primary responsibility of the deacons had to do with the material and physical. Yet the material and the spiritual did not necessarily constitute mutually exclusive spheres for Presbyterian thinkers. This was perhaps why Orders for Ecclesiasticall Discipline directed the deacons not only to “distribute” almes to the poor but also to “comfort” those who are suffering.Footnote 106 To bring out the spiritual aspect of a deacon's duty, Cotton took care to note the need to elect as deacons those who possessed scripturally mandated qualifications. These, it may be worth noting, overlapped considerably with those required of an elder.Footnote 107 From an interesting perspective, Milton recorded that “God out of the strife of men brought forth by his Apostles to the Church that beneficent and ever distributing office of Deacons, the stewards and Ministers of holy almes.”Footnote 108 “Strife” here is most likely a reference to the friction that arose in the Jerusalem church during the initial years of its foundation.Footnote 109 Accordingly the poet appears to imply that one rationale for instituting the diaconate was to promote harmony, as it helped paper over the cracks appearing among church members. Hence it seems reasonable to argue that the spiritual life of parishioners was affected by the work of deacons, albeit more implicitly than by the ministry of other ecclesiastical officers.
III. Conclusion
During the first several years of the English Revolution, the Presbyterian and Independent polemicists presented to the public arguments for their preferred ecclesiastical polities. Remaining at the theoretical level, their discourses tended to be idealistic and thus painted a picture of polities which seemed nearly failsafe. Yet the polemicists were certainly not romanticists who believed that once set up, their ecclesiastical system would take care of all the spiritual ills of the country. Still they believed that their version of church government most aptly guarded the church from doctrinal error, fostered spiritual devotion, and promoted reformation of manners. This difference of opinion became a source of conflict for the godly community from the early 1640s, a reflection of the level of commitment each group displayed to its own vision of an ideal ecclesiastical structure. Moreover the Presbyterian pamphleteers called into question the ability of Independent ecclesiastical polity to maintain spiritual unity, peace, and orthodoxy conducive to healthy spiritual life, when the sovereignty of individual congregations precluded any effective external intervention for rectification of defects. To counter this criticism, the Independents turned the arguments of Presbyterians on their head, contending that classis and synods were redundant because an individual congregation was fully capable of self-governance for proper maintenance of its own spiritual life.
Splintered into numerous groups, the godly community of early 1640s saw the religious battlefield occupied primarily by these two groups of Presbyterians and Independents. Pitched against each other, they set the agenda for public debate on puritan ecclesiology, influenced the course of that debate, and sought to shape the final ecclesiastical settlement to be imposed on the country. Notwithstanding a great regularity of publications from these two camps, however, constructive exchanges of ideas were less of a common feature of the debates if only because the participants were prone to insular reasoning and cross purpose argumentation. Hence the debates, in effect, treaded water. In this milieu, ecclesiology conjoined with piety proved to be something of a contested ground and contributed to escalation of tension that was created by differences of opinion over ecclesiology proper, which historians have highlighted, as well as by variant ideas on the constitution.Footnote 110 In particular, the Presbyterians who constituted the majority in the godly community were insistent on the preeminence of their polity for fostering people's piety. Their ideas crystalized as the decade wore on, to be reflected in such key religious texts of the revolution as the Directory for Public Worship of 1645, Larger and Shorter Catechisms of 1647, and Form of Church Government of 1649.Footnote 111 Although short lived, these documents attest to the realization by way of official state sponsorship of the longstanding vision of the Presbyterians for “reforming the Reformation,” with the instituting of religious devotion shorn of “superstitious” accretions reminiscent of the Roman church and fortified by “sound” preaching and “spontaneous” prayer. Unable to bridge their differences with the Independents, most Presbyterians remained at best indifferent to the religious policies of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate.
Another strand of our findings suggests that there was not much deviation on the part of either the Presbyterian or Independent polemicists from conventional godly piety. To draw a parallel to pre-1640 England, one finds that the polemicists positively subscribed to the stock categories of puritan devotional activity such as hearing of sermons, receiving of the sacraments, and participating in other forms of church ordinances.Footnote 112 Yet what is worth calling attention to is that these patterns of activity were dressed in a peculiarly Presbyterian or Independent garb. Accordingly for the Presbyterians, it was the ruling elders along with the teaching elders who would stand surety for the proper spiritual conduct of parishioners, and it was the governing assemblies of presbyteries and synods which would exercise administrative authority for heightened personal godliness and reformation of society as much as for organizational efficiency. For the Independents, the congregation assisted by the eldership would fulfill the same set of responsibilities in their entirety to empower believers for godly devotion. Yet common to both Presbyterians and Independents was the belief that ecclesiastical structure was not an end in itself but served the cause of piety.
