» Introduction

PDF Print Version
INTRODUCTION

The Reformed Baptist Dilemma                             4

Four Forms Of Church Government                        7

Historical Development                                         10
     Independency in France                                   11
     Separatists in England                                     12
     Separatists in Holland                                      13
     Baptists in England                                          14
     Puritan Independants                                       17
     Nonconformists                                                20
     Independency and Congregationalism confused  22

Towards A Solution                                                24

Summary                                                             28

References And Notes                                            29

.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

INTRODUCTION

The revival of interest in Reformed teaching since the early 1960s has brought about the recovery of many important biblical doctrines. Some of these are the sovereignty of God, the sole authority of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, the centrality and uniqueness of the local church, and the primacy of preaching. These doctrines have either been neglected or distorted among evangelicals at large. Nevertheless, these were the truths mightily owned by God in the past and loved by earlier generations of Christians.

The re-emphasis of these doctrines has brought a new lease of life for the older Calvinistic churches, and has led to the founding of newer fellowships. Numerically speaking, Presbyterians and Baptists have benefited most from this recovery of Reformed teaching. Most of the latter have not hesitated to be known as "Reformed Baptists", holding to the 1689 Particular Baptist Confession of Faith as the doctrinal basis of their churches. Reformed Baptists may claim justly that they are true heirs of the Reformation of the 16th century and the lineal descendants of the Particular Baptists of the I7th century Puritan era. After all, lineage in terms of belief is what matters, and not ecclesiastical pedigree or historical succession.

Amidst apparent growth and unity among the Reformed Baptists there have arisen differences in ecclesiology (that is, the doctrine of the church). There are also differences in other doctrines. For example, in eschatology (the doctrine of the last things), there are differences about premillennialism, postmillennialism, amillennialism, or dispensationalism. Then there are the issues of whether the moral law is

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

still relevant for the Christian, whether the Lord's supper and church membership should be open to all. There is also the debate as to whether Reformed Baptists arose during the 17th century or were descendants of an unbroken line of "Baptists" stemming from the Anabaptists, the Waldensians, the Donatists, and all the way from the time of the apostles. Even the title "Reformed Baptist" has been called in question.

Some of these differences are relatively minor, and should not be enough to agitate or disrupt the unity of the Reformed Baptist constituency. Other matters are of greater importance. Failure to adhere to them would lead to the church concerned being frowned upon rightly not only by other Reformed Baptists but also by the wider conservative circles of churches. It is to be noted that one can hold to too little or to too much to qualify as a "Reformed Baptist". The two boundaries are not necessarily co-extensive. Where one boundary begins and the other ends is, of course, a matter of debate.

It is probable that Reformed Baptists are generally clear about soteriology (that is, the doctrine of salvation). To a man they are Calvinists, holding to the well-known "Five Points" of Calvinism, often known as the doctrines of grace. Few would hedge as a "Four-pointer" or a "Four-and-a-half-pointer".¹ Nevertheless, while being clear on soteriology, there is, unhappily, no equal clarity in the realm of ecclesiology. A general acceptance of believer's baptism and the autonomy of the local church is about all that may be said with certainty about Reformed Baptist churchmanship.

The Reformed Baptist Dilemma

Obviously, believer's baptism and church autonomy alone are not sufficient constituents for a Reformed Baptist ecclesiology. The Plymouth Brethren and the Evangelical Free Churches are at one with us here, and yet are hardly Baptists, although they are baptistic. Moreover, a closer scrutiny of the ecclesiology of General Baptists, Arminian in soteriology, will reveal elements which Reformed Baptists would hesitate to own. If we claim to be the spiritual descendants of the early Particular Baptists we need to rediscover their ecclesiology. If biblical, we would want to adopt it.

Surprisingly, this is what Reformed Baptists have left undone. While attempts have been made since the 1970s to work out an ecclesiology of sorts,² no attempt seems to have been made to determine the

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ecclesiology of the early Particular Baptists. It is true that certain aspects of the church life of that period have been researched, but such research has remained for the most part in academic circles without filtering out to the churches.³ An attempt has been made in recent years to understand the inter-church life of the period,⁴ but this is only one aspect of Particular Baptist ecclesiology.

As we survey the world scene, we find some Reformed Baptist churches practising the fully-fledged Congregationalism of the free, or independent or non-connectional, churches. Office-bearers are appointed, not to rule the church, but to carry out the various functions agreed upon by the church. Decision making is achieved by a vote mechanism which aims at a consensus of opinion. The power and authority to rule the church lies with the congregation, and not with the elders. Many Baptists eschew the word "democracy", preferring instead "christocracy", as a description of their system of church government.⁵ In practice, however, theirs is no different from the humanistic democracy that is summarised by Abraham Lincoln's watchword, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Then there are churches which practise "rule by elders" without the necessity of congregational consent. This is a reaction to chaotic Congregational practice on the one hand, and, on the other, because of a desire to follow what is perceived to be biblical teaching. After all, the New Testament teaches that elders are to rule (so, 1 Tim. 5:17)! "Rule by elders" without congregational consent is virtually Presbyterian practice, a practice which we beg leave to question.

Other churches, some of them influential, believe in the "equality of elders" and carry this to an extreme, calling every elder "pastor". Closer scrutiny will reveal a strong Presbyterian influence in this system. By adopting the principle, but lacking the Presbyterian safeguard of the special position of the ordained minister, weaker churches founder either from lack of clear leadership of a pastor or from an unhealthy competition for leadership among the elders.

Yet others advocate a connectionalism among Reformed Baptist churches thai is akin to the "gradation of church courts" of the Presbyterians. True, some churches operate in isolation from others, resulting in unnecessary duplication of gospel efforts and, worse, actions which affect other churches adversely. However, this does not warrant an adoption of Presbyterianism as an over-reaction. But is the connectionalism of the Presbyterians biblical? Was there not a clear biblical practice known to the early Particular Baptists, a practice which

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

we should adopt? Reactionism often leads to hasty and biased conclusions which are less than biblical. Once they have been adopted, the person or church concerned will find it that much harder to admit their deficiency, let alone discard them at a later date.

On the fringes of the Reformed Baptist constituency there are Baptists who have come to a Calvinistic soteriology yet who are still laden with beliefs and practices carried over from earlier days.⁶ Such people and churches can be recognised by one or more of the following characteristics:

(i) A reluctance to call themselves "Reformed Baptists", preferring the term "Sovereign Grace Baptist" as an appellation for themselves. This is more so in America than in Britain. In Britain the term "Sovereign Grace" was in the past associated with hyper-Calvinistic churches.

(ii) A view which traces historical lineage backwards along the line of churches holding to Baptist principles to the time of the apostles, by-passing the apostate church of Rome.

(iii) A lack of patience and sympathy with Presbyterians who alone, it is claimed, are the spiritual descendants of the Reformers and the Puritans.

(iv) Identification with the Anabaptists in their ecclesiology which, it is claimed, is Congregational.

(v) A denial of the abiding relevance of the moral law, and especially the Fourth Commandment, in this age of grace.

(vi) A preference for the First London Baptist Confession of Faith (issued in 1644 and republished with an appendix in 1646) to the Second London Baptist Confession (issued in 1677 and reaffirmed in 1689), claiming that the earlier confession is a truer reflection of the beliefs of the Particular Baptists.

(vii) Adherence to dispensational premillenialism of one sort or another.

These Baptists enjoy a closer affinity with Reformed Baptists than with Arminian Baptists mainly because of their common soteriology. This affinity, however, has led to some confusion among some newly-founded Reformed Baptist churches together with not a few older ones. Some, in reaction to problems arising from Reformed Baptist churches influenced by Presbyterianism in one form or another, are attracted to

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

the opinions of these "Sovereign Grace" Baptists.

Added to this plethora of opinions and problems is the fact that Independency and Congregationalism have historically been confounded as similar systems of church government. On the one hand, Reformed Baptists neither subscribe to the Presbyterian concept of an hierarchy of church courts, nor do they endorse the Congregational idea of "rule by the congregation". On the other hand, they share with the Presbyterians the principle of "rule by elders", and with the Congregationalists the principle of the autonomy of the local church. Reformed Baptists seem to hold to a system of church government which lies between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism. We need to ask, what system is it to which the Reformed Baptists hold?

With the recovery of the Reformed Faith in the early 1960s Reformed Presbyterians have been actively disseminating books which expound both the Presbyterian form of church government and infant baptism. Seminary professors have been engaged actively in converting their Baptist students to Presbyterians. True, there are more generous and big-hearted Presbyterians who are able to "live-and-let-live". But what are Reformed Baptists to do when faced with militant Presbyterianism? Baptist books on baptism are many, and they are beginning to be made available to the public. But what about a distinctive Reformed Baptist ecclesiology? Reformed Baptists have had to employ Presbyterian literature even in their own seminaries! While the more discerning are able to pick out what is right and good and to reject what is nothing but sheer Presbyterianism, there are clear indications that the less discerning have stumbled.

The uninitiated will throw up his hand in despair when first confronted with this vast spectrum of differences. The situation is truly a sea of confusion! Nevertheless, by standing back and scanning the whole scene before us, we would notice that the problem is basically a lack of clarity in the realm of ecclesiology. More particularly, the difficulty lies in the need to identify the differences and similarities between the different forms of church government. Ecclesiology, then, is not a subject of no significance to Reformed Baptists today.

Four Forms Of Church Government

Ecclesiology is in itself a broad discipline, embracing all aspects of the doctrine of the church. Of practical concern to Reformed Baptist churches is church polity, that is, the manner in which a church is

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

organised and run. Together, the principles which undergird and determine the way by which a church is administered constitute a system, or form, of government. We need to be clear about the various forms of church government which have evolved through the centuries in order to steer our way through the present confused situation.

It has been usual to classify various forms of church government in three basic categories: Prelacy (or Episcopacy), Independency (or Congregationalism), and Prebytenanism. There are those who posit a fourth category, the system practised by the Roman Catholic Church.⁸ However, this is attempted simply to expose the Roman insistence on universal papal supremacy. For our purposes we would maintain that the Romish system is no more than the logical development of Prelacy.

My thesis is that there are four basic forms of church government: Prelacy, Presbyterianism, Independency, and Congregationalism. It is simplistic to sweep all who are neither Prelatists nor Presbyterians into just one category, that of the Independents or Congregationalists. It would be like classifying cows as Cows, dogs as Dogs, but cats and mice together as Cats. The differences between Independency and Congregationalism are glaring enough to warrant recognising them as differing forms of church government.

This is particularly true of today's church scene, in which Congregationalism as practised by most churches is characterised by the "democratic principle", whereas those churches that are Independent (and, therefore, supposedly Congregational as well) are characterised by the "rule of elders". There are also indications that, historically, there were clear differences between Independency and Congregationalism. However, in all the literature which discusses church polity, the two are effectively confounded.

Some definitions are in order:

Prelacy is that form of church government characteristic of the so-called Catholic Church (including, among others, the Church of England, the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, the Orthodox Coptic Church in Egypt, the Lutheran Church, and the Roman Church).⁹ It is maintained that there are three offices, those of the bishop, of the priest (or presbyter), and of the deacon. As noted, this system has been developed by the Roman communion as a papal hierarchy. Apart from the Church of England and the Lutheran Church, both emerging in the time of the Reformation, all the other churches have a species of pope (or patriarch) at the apex of their hierarchies.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Nevertheless, in spite of the different titles used, all these churches share the same basic system of church government. Prelacy may be traced back historically to its elementary beginning in the middle of the second century, but no farther.¹⁰

Presbyterianism is that form of church government which is administered by presbyters or elders who are met in session, presbytery, synod, or general assembly. In other words, instead of an hierarchy of individuals as in Prelacy, there is an hierarchy of committees of individuals. This system is practised by the Dutch Reformed Church, the Church of Scotland and the many Presbyterian denominations in all parts of the world. Presbyterians are wont to assert the antiquity of their system of church government by appealing to the fact that the earliest churches were "clearly presbyterial".¹⁰ By this is meant that the earliest churches, as far as may be determined from history, were ruled by elders or presbyters. Since "rule by elders" is also practised in Independency, both Presbyterianism and Independency unite iin denying Prelacy its claim to antiquity. The rightful claimant to antiquity, whether Presbyterianism or Independency, must be determined by some other criterion.

Independency is that form of church government which maintains that each separate congregation is under Christ, is subject to no external jurisdiction whatever, and possesses within itself (that is, in its office-bearers and members) all the essential materials of government.¹¹ The elders rule the church in such a way as to involve the consent of the congregation. This system was practised both by the Particular Baptists and the Independents. Research has indicated that Independency was the practice of the churches immediately after the apostolic period. This fact has been conceded by men who did not themselves profess adherence to the principles of Independency. William Cunningham states that:

"These eminent men have, more or less fully and explicitly, asserted, that, for the first century at least, each congregation - thai is, the whole members of it, and not merely its office-bearers - transacted in common the whole of the ordinary necessary ecclesiastical business, including the exercise of discipline, and that each congregation was wholly independent of every other, and subject to no control from any party beyond or without itself ."¹²

Congregationalism is that form of church government which maintains that each congregation is ruled by the people. A consensus of

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

opinion of the members is needed in decision making The office-bearers are appointed by the church members to carry out functions agreed by the congregation, rather than to "rule" in the biblical sense. Often confused with Independency, Congregationalism traces its origin from the Anabaptists and other persecuted groups at the close of the medieval period. Since Independency was more the system practised by churches during, and immediately after, the time of the apostles, we should view Congregationalism as a deviation in one direction, just as Prelacy was a deviation in another direction. Because Independency and Congregationalism were regarded as identical during and after the Reformation, churches that were in actuality Congregational were considered as extremists among the Independents or Congregationalists.

These definitions do not presume to describe completely the various forms of church government. But they might be good enough for our present purpose. A fuller picture of the various systems will emerge by and by. For the moment our concern is to demonstrate that Independency must be distinguished from Congregationalism. The question naturally arises, How did it come about that Independency and Congregationalism were confused and confounded as one and the same? The answer must be sought in church history. Just as with the doctrine of salvation, the biblical form of church government had long been distorted and forgotten until the Reformation period.

Historical Development

During the Reformation of the sixteenth century in Europe, two great movements emerged to oppose the apostate Roman Catholic Church: the "Magisterial Reformation" and the "Radical Reformation". The former was led by men such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwmgli and John Calvin. It has been defined as "Magisterial" because of the belief that it was right to engage the help of the civil magistrate in the furtherance of religion. Church and state were practically coextensive. All citizens of a territory, except those who had been excommunicated, were held to be members of the established territorial church. Infant baptism was practised. The churches which grew in this way, such as the Reformed (that is, the Zwinglian and Calvinist) churches in Switzerland, France, Holland and Scotland, were Presbyterian in their form of church government. The Lutheran churches in Germany and Scandinavia, as well as the Church of England, emerged as Prelatic churches.

There was another development within the Reformation period. This widespread, transnational movement was discounted and condemned by

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

the mainline Reformers. In recent times it has been termed the "Radical Reformation". Its many adherents carried biblical, and Reformation, principles to their logical conclusions. The stifling influence of ecclesiastical tradition and imposed magisterial authority were renounced. Scripture alone was the only authority for defining faith and practice.

Because these Radicals believed that the Bible does not teach infant baptism they discarded the practice. For such people the New Testament churches were communities of individuals who had been transformed by the Holy Spirit in an experience of grace. Baptism became "the symbol and seal of the faith of the regenerated". Church and state were seen as two quite different institutions, although both had been ordained by God. Each had its own sphere of jurisdiction exclusive of the other. Civil magistrates may, therefore, not be employed in the furtherance of the welfare of the church. The churches include only voluntary followers of Christ, and admission being by a confession of faith in baptism. Such churches were to be autonomous and would maintain their spiritual purity by employing internal discipline. For these beliefs, revolutionary in their time, the "Anabaptists" (that is, "rebaptisers"), as they were called, were despised and persecuted by Protestant states as well as by Rome.¹³

Independency in France

In France Reformation principles never received widespread support. The reforming efforts of Jacobus Faber, also known as Jacques Lefevre  d'Etaples (circa 1455-1536), however, were not in vain. His interview with John Calvin at the time of Calvin's conversion in 1534 might have been instrumental in the latter's break with Rome.¹⁴ Calvinists formed a congregation in Paris in 1555. When a national synod convened in Paris in 1559, over seventy churches were represented.¹⁵

No definitive statement concerning the Independent form of church government emerged until Morellius's teaching agitated the Reformed Church of France. J. B. Morellius, or Morely, believed that power over all ecclesiastical matters, whether decisions about points of doctrine, or the election and deposition of ministers, excommunication or re-admission of church members, or lay preaching, resides with the people. Morellius' work on the subject, "Traicte de la Discipline et Police Chretienne," was published at Lyons in 1561. It was condemned by the National Synod at Orleans in 1562, and again at Nismes in I572.¹⁶ This highlights the seriousness with which the Presbyterians

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

looked upon the threat of Morellius's teaching!

Morellius's teaching was embraced also by the celebrated philosopher Peter Ramus (1515-1572).¹⁷ The persecution of Huguenots (as the Calvinistic Protestants were called) in France by the Roman Catholics culminated in the shameless massacre of St Bartholomew's Day, 1572, when two thousand were murdered in Paris and twenty thousand in the rest of France.¹⁸ Among those who perished was Ramus. Civil strife continued for many more years, during which time large numbers of Huguenots left for Switzerland, Holland, Brandenburg, Britain and other countries.¹⁹

Separatists in England

In England the welfare of the church was largely determined by the political fortunes of the time. It swung back and forth between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, depending on who was on the throne. During the long reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603), however, Protestantism was firmly established. The Reformers within the Anglican Church became known as Puritans, and continued to press for further reform. They sought to bring their communion to a position resembling that of Calvin's city-church in Geneva. They believed in the Presbyterian form of church government, in which elders rule through presbyteries and synods. They also wanted to abolish religious ceremonies thought to be remnants from Roman Catholicism. Such included the wearing of vestments by the clergy, liturgical prayer, the sign of the cross at baptism, and kneeling at the Lord's table.

Among their leaders were Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603) and William Perkins (1558-1602).

Elizabeth I, and then King James I, were unwilling to allow changes along Puritan lines. In the face of much discouragement a small separatist movement grew up alongside the main Puritan group. The Separatists were led by Robert Browne (circa 1550-1633) and Robert Harrison (died circa 1585). These men and their followers, often called "Brownists", formed an independent congregation at Norwich in 1581. Browne acted as pastor and Harrison as teacher of the church. Browne's teaching must have found a ready reception among the many Dutch Anabaptists who had settled in Britain. Sir Walter Raleigh stated in parliament that there were thousands of Brownists at that time. Two books published by Browne in 1582, "A Book Which Shows The Life And Manners Of All True Christians, And How Unlike They Are Unto The Turks And Papists And Heathen Folk", and "A Treatise Of

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Reformation Without Tarrying For Any", exercised a great influence.²⁰

The church polity of the Browmsls was basically Independency in its infancy, akin to what was taught by Morellius.¹⁷ The English government and bishops lost all patience, and severely repressed the Brownists by imprisonment and by harassment, and by driving them away to the Netherlands. Browne and Harrison took their small flock to Middelburg, in Zeeland (a province in the Netherlands), where it survived for a few years. Browne, however, returned to England, where he eventually broke down in mind and body. He renounced his separatism, and resumed ministry in the Church of England.

Separatist ideas, however, did not cease. By 1587 or 1588 a Separatist congregation appeared in London. Two leaders of the young church. Henry Barrow and John Greenwood, had been imprisoned in 1586. In 1589 Barrow sent from prison a simple church creed called "A True Description Out Of The Word Of God, Of The Visible Church". The church was defined as a company of believers united in fellowship to Christ and to one another. The church officers, elected by the congregation, were said to be the pastor, teacher, elder, deacons and widows. Administration of the church was to be placed in the hands of elders. These men were set above their brethren as virtually a ruling oligarchy. The creed did not concern itself with doctrinal matters since the congregation was already of one mind in holding Calvinistic views.²¹

Separatists in Holland

The Separatist congregation in London chose Francis Johnson as its pastor. John Greenwood, out of prison temporarily, was elected teacher. Two elders and two deacons were chosen. Both Johnson and Greenwood were arrested in December, 1592. Within the next year, fifty-six members of the church were also imprisoned. Other dissenters emigrated to Holland, where the church re-gathered in 1595, and came to be known as the "Ancient Church" with Henry Ainsworth as the pastor. At this stage a section of the church was still in London, although its main strength was concentrated in Amsterdam.

Desiring to make clear its doctrinal position and ecclesiology, the church prepared in 1596 a new creed, the shortened title of which was "A True Confession". Its Calvinism was typical of that of the Puritans. Its polity, far more detailed than that of "A True Description", and marking a real development in an appreciation of Independent principles, shows that its authors had worked out many practical

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

questions since 1589. Of interest to us is the fact that the seven Particular Baptist churches of London used this confession as their model when they drew up their own, earliest, confession in 1644.²²

Another Separatist congregation arose in 1606 or 1607. For purposes of convenience and safety the church divided into two groups which met separately. One group met at Scrooby under the leadership of Richard Clifton, and later that of John Robinson. The other met at Gainsborough, having as its pastor John Smyth. When severe persecution threatened the church the two groups fled to the Netherlands. This was in 1608. In Amsterdam they came across Johnson's "Ancient Church". The group led by John Smyth did not unite with this existing church, preferring to maintain its own identity. The company under Clifton may have joined the Johnson church for a short while, but around the end of April, 1609 most of this company moved on to Leyden under the leadership of John Robinson.

In 1620 a part of this Robinson's congregation sailed to America in the "Mayflower", and came to be known as the Pilgrim Fathers of America. They founded the Plymouth colony. Robinson himself never emigrated, choosing rather to remain as pastor of the major portion of the church in Holland. His influence on the Plymouth separatists was profound because of his teaching before the voyage, his tracts and letters to the flock, and his guidance of William Brewster as their spiritual adviser in New England.²³

In Holland, controversy developed among the several groups of Englishmen. Influenced by the Mennonites, Smyth forsook infant baptism and adopted that of believers. Unfortunately, he also accommodated himself to the peculiar christology of the Mennonites. This taught that when Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary he received flesh which had been created previously in heaven. Smyth also forsook the doctrine of justification by faith as understood by the Reformers, and replaced it, not with the Arminianism of the Mennonites, but with the Roman Catholic synthesis between justification and sanctification.²⁴

Baptists in England

Smyth's serious departure from orthodoxy caused Thomas Helwys and several others to separate from him. They returned to London in 1612 to establish the first Baptist church in England. Helwys died in prison in 1616 and was succeeded by John Murton. By 1630 there were six congregations. Seeking fellowship, they correponded with the

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Mennonites in the Netherlands.²⁵ The General Baptists, so-called because of their affirmation of general atonement, continued to multiply through the subsequent centuries, although ravaged by lamentable apostasy and internal strife. The original General Baptist group fell almost entirely into Socinianism in the eighteenth century.²⁶ Its few remaining evangelical churches were absorbed into a new denomination, "The General Baptist New Connexion", which arose from a group of Arminian converts of the Great Awakening who adopted Baptist views. By the end of the nineteenth century liberalism and political involvement robbed them of spirituality.²⁴

A few years after Helwys founded the first Baptist church in London, Henry Jacob (1563-1624), an associate of John Robinson, returned to that city to form a Separatist church.²⁷ This congregation, founded in 1616, came to be named after its three pastors: Jacob, Lathrop and Jessey. From this congregation arose the first English Particular Baptist church. This was at some time between 1633 and 1638. Its first pastor was John Spilsbury (1593-1668). Having adopted the principle of believer's baptism in 1638, the people affirmed immersion as the correct mode. This was in 1641. From the family of congregations which grew from that founded by Henry Jacob in 1616 came a number of other Particular Baptist leaders, including William Kiffin, Thomas Sheppard, Thomas Munden and Thomas Killcop. Other Particular Baptist pastors also had links with various Independent congregations in London.²⁸

As the Baptist congregations grew in number and prominence it was perhaps inevitable that numerous false accusations were levelled at them. They were charged with being Anabaptists. The reason for this was to insinuate quite deliberately that these English dissenters were extremists just like the fanatics who had been involved in the tragic events at Munster in 1533-36.²⁹ It implied, too, that they were Arminian in doctrine and anti-establishment in their attitude to the state.

The consequence was that the Particular Baptists found it necessary to defend themselves against such false accusations and to distant themselves from the beliefs of the General Baptists. In 1644 the seven existing congregations in London issued a confession signed by fifteen men. This went a long way in clearing misrepresentation of the Particular Baptists and allaying distrust against them. As has been mentioned, this confession was based on the 1596 Confession of the English Separatists settled in Amsterdam.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Before proceeding any further, it would be helplul to discuss the difference in church order between the Particulai Baptists and the General Baptists. While the Particular Baptists were mostly clear-cut Independents, the General Baptists vacillated between Congregationalism and Independency. This was very similar to the position of the Anabaptists, to which the General Baptists were closely associated. The Orthodox Creed, which was produced by the General Baptists in 1678, actually states, in Article 30, that the marks of a true church includes "discipline and government duly executed, by ministers or pastors of God's appointing, and the church's election,..."³⁰ This would fit more into Independency than into Congregationalism. It is known, however, that many General Baptists were not practising the same church order as the Particular Baptists at the time of Isaac Watts (1674-1748).³¹

The swing to outright Congregationalism became obvious in the General Baptists of the New Connection, after the revival of the eighteenth century. They believed that the authority to rule lies with the congregation, and not with the elders. This is clear from the following description of their position at that time:

"The churches composing the New Connection of General Baptists were, in their discipline, strictly congregational... They believed that each society was competent to manage its own concerns; and allowed of no foreign control, not even from their own conferences or association. The executive power of a church, they conceived to be lodged in the members regularly assembled. ...And, while they disclaimed all external authority, they were equally jealous of undue internal influence: holding their rights as church members sacred against the encroachment of their own officers."³²

In America, Edward Hiscox published his book, "The New Directory For Baptist Churches", in 1894. This book was of considerable influence over the Baptists in the subsequent years. Although a Calvinist, Hiscox actually advocated the Congregational form of church government. Describing the government of the church, he wrote:

"The government is administered by the body acting together, where no one possesses a preeminence, but all enjoy an equality of rights; and in deciding matters of opinion, the majority bears rule. The pastor exercises only such control over the body as his official and personal influence may allow, as their teacher and

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

leader, and the expounder of the great Lawgiver's enactments. His influence is paramount, but not his authority. In the decision of questions he has but his single vote. His rule is in the moral force of his counsels, his instruction and guidance in matters of truth and duty, and also in wisely directing the assemblies whether for worship or business. Much less have the deacons any authoritative or dictatorial control over the church affairs. Matters of administration are submitted to the body and by them decided."³³

Today, General Baptists all over the world would not hesitate to own Congregationalism as their form of church government.Theirs is a Congregationalism that is distinct from Independency, in which is emphasized the equal rights and privileges of the members, the priesthood of all believers, and the principle of "rule by the congregation". The Malaysia Baptist Convention, which is affiliated to the Southern Baptist Convention in America, holds to the view that:

"The Baptist church is one of the world's most democratic organizations, using congregational democracy in executing church affairs."³⁴

Puritan Independents

The Episcopal (or Prelatic) form of church government was retained in the Church of England throughout the reigns of Elizabeth I, James I (1603-25) and Charles I (1625-49). The Church of Scotland had been Presbyterian ever since John Knox introduced reforms there after his return from Geneva in 1559. Within the Puritan movement there developed a powerful body of opinion espousing and advocating the principles of Independency. During the ascendancy of William Laud, who was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by Charles I in 1633, several men who adopted this persuasion were forced to leave the country. Some found refuge in Holland where they ministered to English expatriate congregations, while others crossed the Atlantic and founded the New England community. Unlike the Pilgrim Fathers, who were never anything other than Separatists these latter emigrants came from mainstream establishment Puritanism. With undue optimism they had hoped that their national church could be reformed from within; in the event, they were sadly disappointed. This was because their concept of church government was basically the same as that of the formal Separatists. Because England was totally incapable of endorsing a separatist national church they had to go. Their views were embodied in "The Cambridge Platform" of 1648, to which John Cotton (1585-1657)

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

added a preface.³⁵

The English civil war began in 1642, and lasted until 1646. Charles I was eventually beheaded. England and Scotland bound themselves to each other in a civil and religious bond called "the Solemn League and Covenant", and the Commonwealth was established under the guidance of Oliver Cromwell. The Westminster Assembly met in 1643 to draw up a confession of faith for the nation. The divines who met at this assembly came from all over Scotland and England. They were mostly Presbyterians. Some were Anglicans, while a few were Independents. The strict Presbyterians, especially those from Scotland, wanted the Presbyterian model of government to be imposed on every parish in the nation, with no toleration allowed to those with other convictions about church government. The Westminster Confession, drawn up and finally published in 1647, was essentially a Presbyterian document. The attempt to establish a presbyterian-type national church, however, did not materialise.

Although the Independents in the Westminster Assembly were few in numbers, they included some of the most able and respected men of the time. Moreover, they represented a considerable body of opinion existing beyond the assembly, and particularly in the parliamentary army. The nucleus was a group of five men who became known as "the Dissenting Brethren". All had been exiles in Holland: Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughs and William Bridge. In January, 1644, they published "An Apologetical Narration". This was in effect an appeal to Parliament in defence of their position. When in October of the same year the assembly drafted its proposed system of church government, the Independents tabled objections to three of its features:³⁶

1.  Particular congregations were placed under single presbyterial control.

2. A system of standing assemblies was to be set up: at congregational, classical, provincial and national levels.

3. No single congregation was allowed the right of ordination.

Across the Atlantic, John Cotton had expounded and defended Independency in two books, "The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (1644)" and "The Way Of The Churches Of Christ In New England (1645)". Cotton's book, "The Keys", appeared in London a few months before the publication of the 1644 Confession by the seven Particular

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Baptist congregations. The 1644 Confession, based as it was on the 1596 Separatist Confession, already contained a clause advocating co-operation between like-minded churches. This clause (47) states:

"And although the particular congregations be distinct, and several bodies, every one as a compact and knit city within itself; yet are they all to walk by one rule of truth; so also they (by all means convenient) are to have the counsel and help one of another, if necessity require it, as members of one body, in common faith, under Christ their head."

The appearance of Cotton's "The Keys", with its clear and strong emphasis on inter-church fellowship, confirmed the thinking of the Particular Baptists, and spurred them to develop the regional associations peculiar to them.³⁷ Cotton's book, together with "An Apologetical Narration", published by the dissenting brethren within the Westminster Assembly, were instrumental in changing John Owen (1616-1683) from Presbyterianism to Independency.³⁸

Owen had published a short book entitled "The Duty Of Pastors And People Distinguished" to vindicate the Presbyterian view of church polity against Episcopacy on the one hand, and extreme Congregationalism on the other. This was in 1643. From 1644 he began to write a number of tracts and books in defence of Independency. In 1667 he published "A Brief Instruction In The Worship Of God And Discipline Of The Churches Of The New Testament". At the time many dissenting congregations were springing up, and this book, which came to be known as "The Independents' Catechism", was a great help to their cause.³⁹ Finally, Owen wrote "The True Nature Of The Gospel Church", published posthumously in 1689. This was for many years regarded as the definitive exposition of Independency.⁴⁰

From about 1645 to 1653 the Presbyterians were in the ascendant. However, from about 1653 to the end of the Commonwealth period the Independents gained control. Cromwell himself was an Independent, and soon realised that the "new presbyter" was as dangerous as the "old priest". Because he came out strongly on the side of the Independents the Presbyterians lost much of their power.⁴¹ During this period of Independent ascendancy, various extreme and heretical sects flourished especially in the army. Quite properly, the orthodox Independents were anxious to distinguish themselves from all such. In 1658 ministers of Independent persuasion throughout the land were summoned to a synod at the Savoy Palace in London. A committee of distinguished divines

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

including Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, Philip Nye, William Bridge, Joseph Caryl and William Greenhill, was appointed to draw up a confession. All except Owen had been present at the Westminster Assembly. The confession, "the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order", was in most respects identical to the Westminster Confession.

The really original part ot the Savoy Declaration was the "Platform of Church Polity". Here, the distinctive views of the Independents were set forth:⁴²

1. Total spiritual power and authority resides in the local congregation.

2. The qualification for the calling of a minister is his election by the congregation. Formal ordination is a ratification of this choice, and is normally to be performed by the eldership of the local congregation.

3. Synods are expedient for the discussion and resolution of difficulties, but they have no power over churches and individuals. The system of standing synods subordinate to one another is invalid.

The Savoy Platform of Church Polity was later to be adopted by the Particular Baptists in their 1677/89 Confession with only slight modifications.

Nonconformists

When King Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 the Anglican system was re-established. The "Clarendon Code" came into effect between the years 1661 and 1665. This included four parliamentary acts bringing extreme pressures upon non-Anglicans. In 1662 the first Act of Uniformity was ratified by the sovereign. This required everybody to conform as worshipping adherents of the established church. Among other matters, ministers were required to be ordained in the episcopal manner, while the Prayer Book was the standard for public worship.

When many Puritans refused to conform a head-on clash became quite inevitable. Two thousand ministers were ejected from the Church. Many of these good men attached themselves to the Baptists and the Independents, thus strengthening greatly the cause of Non-conformity. Although the Particular Baptists were also "Independents" in the sense that they held to this form of church government, they were often distinguished from the paedobaptist Independents.

In the light of these changes, the Particular Baptists felt the need to

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

identify themselves with the large body ot Calvinistic non-Anglicans. The 1644 Confession was by then a document not well-known. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith was, therefore, issued in 1677. This confession was based largely on the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration, "to convince all that we have no itch to clog religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words, which hath been in consent with the Holy Scripture, used by others before us". When the Toleration Act was passed in 1689, thirty-seven leading ministers, representing more than 107 churches all over England and Wales, signed the document. In 1744 this confession was adopted by the Calvinistic Baptists of North America, and called by them the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.

Chapter 26 of the 1677/89 Confession, entitled "Of The Church", deviated considerably from the Westminster Confession, relying almost wholly on the Savoy Platform Of Church Polity. This had been appended to the 1658 Savoy Declaration. By adopting the Savoy Platform, with minor amendments, the Particular Baptists were not departing from their commitment to the Independent form of church government expressed in the earlier 1644 Confession. An essential agreement with this confession was asserted in the introductory note to the 1677/89 documents. Being far more complete and better ordered than the earlier confession, that of 1677/89 may be considered as a definitive exposition of the beliefs of the Particular Baptists.

We have traced the development of Independency up to the publication of John Owen's "The True Nature Of A Gospel Church" in 1689. It should be noted that Independency was forged in the furnace of dissent from Episcopacy on the one side, and Presbyterianism on the other. The Particular Baptists differed from other Independents only in the matter of baptism and the separation of church and state. Infant baptism, which was rejected by the Particular Baptists, continued to be practised by other Independents. Until the eighteenth century the paedobaptist Independents were to remain in disagreement among themselves concerning the extent of the civil magistrate's authority in religious affairs. The Cambridge Platform of the New England churches permitted the civil authority to restrain and punish idolatry, blasphemy, heresy and the like, while the Savoy Declaration advocated a clear separation between church and state.

It should be noted, too, that the terms "Independency" and "Congregationalism" were used interchangeably to refer to the one and the same form of church government. No fourth category was conceived apart from these three: Episcopacy, Presbyterianism and Independency

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

or Congregationalism. Churches which practised popular democracy were regarded merely as extreme Congregationalists. In fact, in the earlier years Independents preferred to be known as Congregationalists.⁴³ This was because the term "Independent" was used in a derogatory way by the opponents of the system. They endeavoured to imply that the former were isolationists, refusing to submit to the supposed orderliness found in the connectional church systems. A favourite charge of the Presbyterians was that Independency was tantamount to anarchy. This accusation was rebutted by the Independents' claim that Presbyterianism was inherently tyramcal.⁴⁴ Moreover, when the Independents employed the term "Congregational" they meant that the visible church of Jesus Christ on earth consists of local congregations made up of called-out saints, instead of the hierarchical structuralism of Presbyterians or the national-church concept of the Episcopalians.

Independency and Congregationalism confused

A shift in the meaning of the terms began to occur very early. The extreme Independents began to forsake rule by elders for popular democracy. The followers of Robert Browne appeared to have carried his teaching about the autonomy and power of the church to an extreme. Isaac Watts (1674-1748), writing to his brother Enoch, mentioned that "there were some of the Independents heretofore called Brownists, some of whom were very irregular in the management of church affairs, but they are not to be found now."³¹ John Owen alluded to the existence of "democratical confusion" in his days which hindered him from considering any other alternative to Episcopacy, apart from Presbyterianism, to which he adhered until his change of mind in 1644.⁴⁵ He described in disdain the system of church government which was "absolutely democratical or popular".⁴⁶ The term "Congregationalism" began to mean that the congregation has power to rule the church, or, otherwise expressed, the power of self-rule. The term "Independency" began to mean that the congregation is autonomous, although maintaining close fellowship with like-minded churches.

The tendency to take congregational authority to the extreme is demonstrated by the experience of the Congregational (that is, Independent) churches in New England. By the third quarter of the seventeenth century the churches there had already degenerated to the point when tension existed between the ministers and the congregations. This was due partly to the gradual disappearance of the

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ruling elders, and partly to a decline in spirituality among many of the people. The ministers gave warning in the "Reforming Synod" of 1679 that "unless a church have divers elders, the church government must needs become either prelatic or popular". The churches finally adopted the Saybrook Platform in 1708, in which Presbyterian connectionalism was advocated.⁴⁷

The Baptists were not spared this problem. The Separatists had held to a high view of the ministry, holding that the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper were not to be administered until ministers had been appointed. This was the thrust of the 1596 Confession as well as that of John Robinson, Smyth's former co-labourer.⁴⁸ Smyth and Helwys, however, having become Baptists, were of the opinion that under mitigating circumstances the congregation may conduct these ordinances. This point is clearly brought out in Helwys's "Declaration of Faith", brought out in 1611. This became the confession of faith of the first General Baptist church which he founded later in London. Article 11 of the confession states that the congregation "may, and ought to, when they are come together, to pray, prophesy, break bread, and administer in all the holy ordinances, although as yet they have no olfficers, or that their officers should be in prison, sick, or by any other means hindered from the church (1 Pet. 4:10 & 2:5)". The 1644 Confession of the Particular Baptists also played down the importance ol the ministry for similar reasons.⁴⁹

The signatories to the 1644 Confession were not ecclesiastical anarchists, nor were those who followed them in leadership in succeeding years. Under ordinary circumstances no individual and no congregation were at liberty to introduce their own innovations.⁵⁰ This is confirmed by the fact that the 1677/89 Confession reaffirmed the proper authority of the ministers. In chapter 28, paragraph 2, it is stated that "these holy appointments (of baptism and the Lord's supper) are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ". In chapter 30, paragraph 3, it states that "the Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants".

What was advocated for extraordinary circumstances, however, could have been taken as normative by some Baptist congregations. Today, most churches which are "independent" (that is, not belonging to

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

connectional denominations such as the Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Methodist churches) would profess to be practising Congregationalism. Theirs would be a Congregationalism characterised by the "democratic principle".

The point needs to be made that this modern interpretation of Congregationalism is by no means the same as the "Congregationalism" of past times. In view of this shift in the meaning of the term, it would seem best to distinguish Congregationalism, as it is understood today, from Independency. In fact, it would have been preferable to have distinguished from the beginning what were essentially two systems. Much of the confusion which has arisen would have been minimised.⁵¹

Presbyterians have through the years contributed to the confounding of the terms Independency and Congregationalism. Prelacy does not pose a challenge to Presbyterians. In their expositions of church government Prebyterians invariably refute Episcopacy in a manner totally acceptable to we Baptists! With Independency, however, Presbyterians find a formidable contender with which to reckon. Partly because of the presence of the "extreme Independents", and partly because of their prejudice against Independency, Presbyterians have striven hard to discredit the system.

When arguing against Independency, a favourite approach of Presbyterians is to treat it under its two purportedly leading characteristics. They assert that it is "independent" as well as "congregational".⁵² The strengths of what it means to be "independent" and "congregational" are normally acknowledged. The procedure is then to follow up with an attack on the abuses of the ideas. Now, it is true that Independency, just like any other system, can be and has been abused. But to present the abuse of the system as the system seems to us to be hardly fair. The Presbyterians are, in effect, raising strawmen as targets for their polemic. They have succeeded in confusing the uninitiated, and preventing undiscerning Presbyterians from considering Independency as the only biblical alternative. Nevertheless, Independency, as the scripturally decreed form of church government, still stands. The unprejudiced eyes of John Owen were opened to see this. Many Presbyterian eyes will yet be similarly opened of the Lord.

Towards A Solution

Isaac Watts (1674-1748) was a hymn-writer, preacher and educationist

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

of the Independent persuasion. He was also a paedobaptist. As a well-respected minister during the period immediately after the death of John Owen, and ihe re-affirmation of the 1677 Confession by the Particular Baptists in 1689, he must be considered to have been a competent judge of the church situation of his day. We have alluded to the letter which he wrote to his brother, Enoch, outlining the difference between the various opinions held at that time. He wrote:³¹

"The Baptists differ not from Calvinists in their doctrine, unless in the article of infant baptism; they generally deny any children to be in the covenant of grace, and so deny the seal of the covenant to them. They deny baptism by sprinkling to be real and true baptism. In church government they are Independents."

Concerning "Independents", whom now we would regard as Congregationalists, he wrote:

"There were some of the Independents heretofore called Brownists, some of whom were very irregular in the management of church affairs, but they are not to be found now.
The tenets of rigid Independents are:
1st. That every church has all the power of governing itself in itself, and that everything done in the church must be by the majority of the votes of the brethren.
2nd. That every church has its minister ordained to itself, and that he cannot administer the ordinances to any other people, and if he preaches among others it is but as a gifted brother."

On those whom we would regard as true Independents, he wrote:

"But the generalities of Independents follow rather Dr. Owen's notions; their tenets are such as these:
1st. That the power of church government resides in the pastors and elders of every particular church.
2nd. That it is the duty of the people to consent.
3rd. They generally think a minister not to be ordained but to a particular church though many of them now think that, by virtue of communion of churches, he may preach authoritatively, and administer the ordinances to other churches upon extraordinary occasions.
4th. That it is not absolutely necessary that a minister be ordained by the imposition of hands of the other ministers, but only requisite that other ministers should be there present as advisers and assistants when he is ordained by the church; that is,


set apart by their choice and his acceptance.
5th. They generally hold more to the doctrines of Calvin than Presbyterians do.
6th. They think it not sufficient ground to be admitted a member, it the person be only examined as to his doctrinal knowledge and sobriety of conversation; but they require with all some hints, or means, or evidences of the work of grace on their souls, to be professed by them, and that not only to the minister but to the elders also, who are joint rulers in the church.
7th. They do not require (as some think) a word of scripture, or time, or place, or sermon, by which they were converted; for very few can tell this; but only they discourse and examine them a little of the way of their conviction of sin, of their being brought to know Christ; or at least ask them what evidences they can give why they hope they are true believers, and try to search whether there be sincerity in the heart, as much as may be found by outward profession, that they may, as much as in them lies, exclude hypocrites."

John Owen's "The True Nature of a Gospel Church and its Government" was regarded as the standard work on Independency for a long period. The Particular Baptists saw no necessity to defend the form of church government which they were practising since it was already defended ably by others. While under persecution for most of the seventeenth century, they channelled their energy to planting churches, defending believer's baptism against that of infants, and maintaining unity within their own ranks in the face of differences over issues such as church membership and the Lord's supper. This last question concerned whether they should be "open" or "closed".⁵³

The need of the hour is to have some definitive work published on Independency, and how it contrasts with other forms of church government. Would not the solution lie in reproducing Owen's book in our own days? The works of John Owen have been made available since the 1960s in a set of sixteen volumes.⁵⁴ Included in this set is the said book. Unfortunately, it has not met the need of the time. We believe that this is not because it is buried deep in Owen's writings; there are other reasons.

First, the language and the style are difficult for the average modern reader to follow. His method of reasoning is that of Aristotle, a man unknown to most modern evangelicals. Owen's sentences are long and involved, with many digressions and sub-divisions, so much so that the main points are obscured. Much as the protagonists of Owen would like

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

to promote his works, it needs to be admitted candidly that his works offer hard reading for the untrained mind.

Second, Owen was writing to defend Independency against the exalted claims of Episcopacy. He attempted to conciliate the Presbyterians.⁵⁵ In fact, Owen was of the opinion that the differences between Independency and Presbyterianism were not necessarily irreconcilable.⁵⁶ He harboured the hope that "so good a work" as the reconciliation of the two might one day be achieved without any compromise of scriptural truth. Owen's magnanimity is to be commended. However, in view of the gross ignorance of the Independent form of church government which prevails today, and the onslaught of militant Presbyterians upon those who differ from them, Owen's work is inadequate for the current need. More modern polemic and comparative studies would be essential.

Third, Independency and Congregationalism are treated as one and the same in Owen's book. He did point out the extreme practices of some in his days, but did not treat these emphases as effectively a system quite dilferent to the Independency which he propounded. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this chapter, Congregationalism as it is known today is a system quite distinct and different from the Independency of John Owen.

Fourth, Owen's view of Independency was not necessarily complete or consistent. This was because of his retention of both infant baptism and the federal theology of the Presbyterians. It would appear that Owen had not interacted much with the Baptists of his day, despite the contrary impression often portrayed of him, arising from his attempt to secure the release of John Bunyan, the well-known Baptist, from prison. Owen's own testimony was that he interacted only with IPresbyterians, at least up to the time of his change of mind from Presbyterianism to Independency. He said, "Of the congregational way I was not acquainted with any one person, minister or other; nor had I, to my knowledge, seen any more than one in my life. My acquaintance lay wholly with ministers and people of the presbyterian way."⁴⁵ If the past tense of the last quoted sentence is any indication, Owen did not interact much with Christians of other persuasions right up to the time he penned those words, which was the year 1657. He would not have learned much about the Baptist way from John Bunyan because the lstter was usually in prison. Moreover, Bunyan was an enthusiastic defender of the view that differences about baptism and church membership were unimportant.

The present work is simply a stop-gap measure to meet the

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

immediate need until a better book is produced by someone more able. If these pages can be used by God to strengthen the Reformed Baptist churches which are springing up throughout this land of Malaysia, the effort will have been worthwhile. If they can be used by God to help others, both in this land and beyond, there will be much cause for rejoicing!

Without a doubt, John Owen was the doyen of Independency both in his days and for a long while after. Because his book "The True Nature" represents the views of the Independents, we shall be quoting him often in the present work. The Particular Baptists, however, practised a more consistent Independency. Where they differed from Owen, reference will be made to the 1644 and the 1677/89 Confessions. The Bible, however, is our sole authority in all matters of faith and practice rather than any confession drawn up by men. All the principles of Independency must be tested by Scripture. These, then, in descending order of importance, are our sources for an appreciation of Independency: Scripture, the 1644 and 1677/89 Confessions of Faith, and John Owen's writings.

Throughout this work the word "Independent" will be used in two ways: (i) To refer to all who uphold Independency as their form of church government, whether baptist or paedobaptist; and (ii) to refer to only paedobaptists who uphold Independency, of whom John Owen was just one among many. The context will make clear which of these two usages is meant. The word "independent", with lower case "i", will be used to refer to those who are not in connectional churches. The "independent" churches are also referred to as "free" churches.

Summary

1. Reformed Baptists are today faced with the problem of not being clear on ecclesiology. Instead of recovering the church polity of the early Particular Baptists, Reformed Baptists have allowed themselves to be influenced by Presbytenanism and other factors.

2. Traditionally, Independency and Congregationalism have been confounded as one and the same entity. This is unfortunate. The two systems are quite different and their confusion has generated problems for not a few. Instead of thinking about three forms of church government, we should reckon upon four: Prelacy, Presbyterianism, Independency and Congregationalism.

3. Originally, the word "Congregational" meant that the visible church

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

of Jesus Christ on earth is made up of congregations of called-out people. The word "Independent" was a derogatory term directed against  those who embraced a Congregational church order. The purpose was to imply that the Congregationalists inclined to anarchy in their churches. In time a difference meaning occurred between the two words, so that "Congregational" came to mean the congregation ruling the church, while "Independent" came to indicate that the congregation is autonomous. 

4. Independency arose in the separatist movements of the sixteenth century and was refined by Independents from within the ranks of Puritanism in the seventeenth century. John Owen's book, "The True Nature of a Gospel Church", was both definitive and influential for a long period.

5. The Particular Baptists practised a more consistent Independency by rejecting infant baptism and refining the principles of the system. They were in the earliest stage of their history seen to be separate from the paedobaptist Independents.

6, We need a contemporary, up-to-date, exposition of Independent principles. Until a better work is produced, the present contribution would try to meet the need of the hour. The Bible, the two confessions of the Particular Baptists, and John Owen's book, "The True Nature of a Gospel Church", will be referred to in that order of importance.


References And Notes:

1. Some claim themselves to be Calvinists but reject the doctrine of "particular redemption" (also known as "definite atonement"), one of the "five points" of historic Calvinism. These people can be termed, with no disrespect intended, as "four-pointers". Others claim that Christ's death was intended for every individual in the world, buit that only the elect are saved. These are "four-and-a-half-pointers". They usually camouflage their truncated doctrine with the oft-quoted cliche that Christ's death was "sufficient for all but efficient for some".
2. A series of articles appeared in the magazine Reformation Today (editor, Erroll Hulse) in the 1970s.
3. B. R. White, until recently lecturer in church history at Regent's Park College, Oxford, together with a few others, has researched in considerable detail the ecclesiology of the Particular Baptists.
4. See RT 103, 104.
5. EDT, pp. 122-124.
6. See, for example, K. H. Good.


7. Richard P. Belcher and Tony Mattia, A Discussion
8. J. Bannerman, Vol. 2, p. 245
9. We limit ourselves here to examples of churches which were in existence during, and immediately after, the Reformation.
10. W. Cunningham, Vol. 1, p. 256
11. This is the definition given by the Presbyterian, Thomas Witherow, in his book, The Apostolic Church - Which Is It?, p. 14.
12. W. Cunningham, Vol.  2, pp. 549-550
13. W. L. Lumpkin, p. 13.
14. NIDCC, p. 367.
15. HC, pp. 380, 420, 421.
16. W. Cunningham, pp. 372, 543.
17. W. Cunningham, Vol. 2, p. 548.
18. A. M. Renwick, p. 124.
19. E. H. Broadbent, p. 232.
20. Ibid., pp. 239 240.
21. W. L. Lumpkin, p. 80
22. Ibid., pp. 79-81.
23. NIDCC, p. 852.
24. T. J. Nettles, pp. 13-72.
25. E. Hulse, An Introduction To The Baptists, p. 25.
26. Socinianism was a movement founded by Socinus, who denied the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His work on the cross, and that men are fallen. These are the very truths denied in Islam, except that Socinianism appeared in a Christian garb.
27. E. H. Broadbent, p. 245.
28. B. R. White, The Doctrine of the Church, p. 572.
29. In Munster, fanatics anticipated the second coming of the Lord by setting up a Christian commonwealth. They saw this as the location of the New Jerusalem. Soon polygamy appeared, and sins punishable by death included blasphemy, seditious language, scolding one's parents, backbiting, spreading scandal and complaining. When government forces later attacked the Munsterites, they put up a fight, resulting in many being killed and others captured and executed.
30. W. L. Lumpkin, p. 319.
31. D. Fountain, p. 104.
32. A. C. Underwood, p. 159.
33. E. T. Hiscox, pp. 144-145.
34. Baptist Hand Book, pp. 50-51, 78-80.
35. I. Murray, The Reformation of the Church, p. 233.
36. Ibid., pp. 283-284.
37. B. R. White, Ibid., pp. 587-588.
38. P. Toon, pp. 18-19, 27.
39. JO, Vol. 15, p. 446.
40. P. Toon, p. 164.
41. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, pp. 20-21.
42. I. Murray, p. 275.
43. Ibid., p.245, 283, 315.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

44. Ibid., p. 293.
45. JO, Vol. 13, p. 223.
46. JO, Vol. 16, p. 112.
47. I. Murray, Jonathan Edwards, pp. 16-18.
48. Although John Robinson did not himself emigrate to New England, he continued to exercise a great influence on the Plymouth Colony by his guidance of William Brewster through writing. Brewster led the congregation in praise and prayer and in teaching the Bible and Christian doctrine, but did not preach or administer the sacraments because he was no an ordained minister. See on Brewster in NIDCC.
49. B. R. White, Ibid., p. 582.
50. B. R. White, Ibid., p. 575.
51. It should not surprise us to discover that many Baptist books use the standard arguments of Congregationalism to justify Independency as a system. See, for example, Hezekiah Harvey, The Church, pp. 38-42.
52.  See, for example, W. Cunningham,  Vol. 2, p. 545-556; and J. Bannerman, Vol. 2, Chap. V.
53. See R. W. Oliver, The Emergence of a Strict and Particular Baptist Community.
54. Published by the Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh.
55. See, for example, JO, Vol. 16, p. 202.
56. Cf. JO, Vol. 14, pp. 258, 338.

| Bookmark