|
These letters was found in the 1952 issues of Progress, the monthly magazine of the Romford Congregational Church. Letters from an imaginary Uncle to his imaginary twin Niece and Nephew Dear Jack and Betty,
I was delighted to hear you are joining the Congregational Church at South St. It is, of course, only what I expected, as I know your family roots have been deep in that Church for at least three generations. Since hearing the news however, I have wondered whether you are joining your Church merely because mother and father (not to mention grandparents) are members. Please don't misunderstand me. I know you well enough to be sure you are not taking this step carelessly; that you do so only because you realise the Christian way of life is and always has been the only one worth living; that you both wish to love and serve our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and fully realise the best way to do this is to join in fellowship with others of similar views, and that you also realise this step is one of the most important of your young lives. No, my doubt is not there. It is I think best expressed by asking you both a few questions. Why are you joining a Congregational Church (and not an Anglican, Methodist, Baptist of Presbyterian)? Do you know where Congregationalism differs from these others? Do you know its history, its distinctive features, its glorious traditions? It is to give you a very brief knowledge of these things that I propose to write you this series of letters. I hope when you have read them all your interest will be aroused, and that you will wish to read more and in greater detail of this glorious story. But here again I must be careful. It is not my wish to give you the impression that the Church of Christ is confined to Congregationalism. We are but a branch of the one Church. Our own history, which does not go back earlier than the 16th century, must not blind you to the fact that when you join South St. Congregational Church you join the great Church of Christ - one great Holy Church - with a story going back nearly twenty centuries to the time of Christ Himself, now being preached the wide world over. The traditions and the story of these 20 centuries are yours to inherit; there is for you a great and glorious witness from the past whatever your denomination. Yet there is a romantic story to be told about Congregationalism. You probably know how the Reformation brought Protestantism to birth in the fifteenth century, but do you know of its earliest grim struggles against bitter persecution for well nigh a century, until finally it came to power for a brief space, under Oliver Cromwell - of further persecution following the Restoration, of the Act of Uniformity in 1662 when so many Congregational Churches were founded (including your own Church in Romford)? How, slowly but surely, your forefathers won complete freedom, and how this freedom was followed by decay and decay by revival? Then there is the story of the last 100 years or so when Independency cautiously - how very cautiously - groped its way towards Union and yet more union, always jealously guarding its independency and yet being forced more and more by the logic of events to closer and closer union. All this I will try and tell you very briefly. My aim will not be to give you a full and complete history of Congregationalism - that is beyond my powers - but to whet your appetite for more and to direct you to many excellent publications which will supply your need. If I can give you are little of the thrill and romance which I experience when I first read the story then my labours will not have been in vain. May God bless you, Yours affectionate, Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, Unfortunately, the beginning of this letter has been lost. ... They called one of their number to be their minister and others they appointed deacons. These folk who joined together in one church in order to worship God in praise and prayer were very conscious of the fact that they had direct access to Christ himself without the need to call upon any civil or religious authority. In the second century of our era things began to alter quite a lot. Bishops had been appointed and Churches came more and more under their rule. To the Bishops gradually accrued all the powers formerly held by the members themselves. Creeds also began to be formed. No longer could you join the Church by a simple direct confession of faith, you had to do so by subscribing to a creed. (In the end Christian people even came to believe that the Grace of God came through Bishops and not by way of associations with fellow Christians.) By the middle of the third century the Bishop was controlling all the Churches in his area. Slowly but surely a vast and outwardly imposing edifice was erected of Pope, Cardinal, Bishop and Priest, with the result that the Church itself became enfeebled and weak. Congregational life became impossible and its power vanished. More and more Christian people became content to leave everything to the "spiritual head" of the Church and real Christian religion decayed and with decay came corruption and evil. This process continued until the Reformation, and while the Church became very wealthy it also became very unreal. Throughout these centuries, however, Congregationalism remained alive; although often driven underground it yet never died. You see it cannot die, because whenever men and women came freely together in spiritual association there is the fundamental principle of Congregationalism. Sects like the Montanists and Donatists in the earlier centuries; the Beguines in the Netherlands and the Waldenses in France and Italy all tried to recapture the spiritual freedom of the 1st century. Then came an event which shook the Church to its very foundations and heralded the centuries of persecution which were to follow. The discovery of the Printing Press and the translation of the Bible into common tongue. Christians began to read the Bible for themselves. They found how Bishop and Priest had interfered with the Divine flow of God's Grace to ordinary men and women. There grew up a demand for the "Open Bible." Folk urged that Christian men and women should have the Bible and only the Bible as their supreme authority for Christian living and faith. It is perhaps hard for us in the 20th century to realise what the "Open Bible" meant to those people. Remember when you see that Bible in your own Church the many centuries of strife and persecution that had to be endured before men and women won the right to use it. May God bless you, You affectionate Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, It is pleasing to know that you really enjoy my monthly "essay". That certainly encourages me to continue. I did not realise when I started what a labour it was going to be. However, it is a labour of love - so here goes for another instalment. You will recollect that in my previous letter we reached the Reformation. We now come to that period of history known to us in England as the Tudor Period. As you know it was Henry VIII who finally broke the power of Rome in this country, although his action in doing so was far more political than spiritual, but even if he had not done so most historians agree that an English Reformation would have occurred. English men and women were reading the Bible for themselves. They were discovering the simple faith of the early Apostolic Churches and were comparing them with the pomp and ceremonies of Rome. Martin Luther was proclaiming to the German peoples that the Bible was supreme over the Cardinal and Pope and that men did not need a priest to give them pardon and absolution for their sins. During the reign of Edward VI many Protestant exiles from the Continent found refuge in this country, but on his death and with the accession of Mary to the throne bitter persecution broke out and leading Protestants in England had to find refuge in Continental cities. Here they came under the influence of Calvin and lived in such cities as Geneva, Frankfort, Strasbourg and Basel. It was in Frankfort that a significant dispute broke out. Many of the exiles wanted to follow the more austere worship of Calvin in Geneva. The dispute was really one between the relative powers of the Minister and Congregation. It lasted a long time and it contained the germs of Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and Independency amongst the Protestants themselves. It is only of interest because it foreshadowed the struggle that was shortly transferred to English Churches in the reign of Elizabeth. On the death of Mary in 1558 and the succession to the throne of Elizabeth, a Protestant, most of the exiles on the Continent returned to England and loud was their demand for the elimination in English Churches of all forms of Popery and the establishment of the English Church on the lines of Frankfort and Geneva. And now began a long and bitter struggle over the future form which worship was to take in this country. Although recognition of the Pope had ceased the Church retained many of its Roman practices and to the bitter disappointment of the exiles Elizabeth refused to alter them. The Act of Uniformity in 1559 restored the Prayer Book. The Act of Supremacy made the Queen the supreme head of the Church. The exiles used to the simple and austere worship of the Reformed Continental Churches were not satisfied with the English variety with so many rites and ceremonies associated with the Roman Church. Here was really born Puritanism - the demand for purity of worship. The Queen, however, was determined to have uniformity and in 1566 the Puritan clergy in London were given the option of conforming forthwith or getting out. Most of them gave in but a minority refused and were suspended from their livings. The result of all this was to split the Puritan movement into three groups. This split was very important to us as Congregationalists. The three groups were: (1) Those who conformed but still hoped to influence the State Church away from its Roman practices, i.e. to purify it internally. They were probably the forerunners of the present day low churchmen as distinct from the High Church and Anglo-Catholics. (2) This group also remained in the State Church, but tried to go even further than the first group. Not only did they wish to purify it but to change its form of government from Episcopacy to Presbyterianism. (3) This group was called the Separatists. Bitterly disappointed at the failure of the State Church to purge all the "offensive habits and ceremonies" they declined to use even the Book of Common Prayer. They refused to obey the law and conform with the State Church and they refused to acknowledge the Queen's or the State's authority in spiritual matters. They took the perilous and yet heroic path of setting up their own Churches to worship in their own way. These Separatists were our Congregational forefathers and of them I will tell you more next month. You affectionate, Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, It has taken three somewhat lengthy letters to reach that period of Elizabeth's reign where a small group of Protestants can be identified as the original Congregationalists. They were not, of course, so called. They were first called Separatists, then Brownists (after one of their leaders a man named Robert Brown), and later Independents. But these men and women are definitely our immediate Congregational forebears. It is impossible to tell you in detail the full story of the years of persecution which followed. Against the Separatists were ranged the full powers of State and Church. The Queen was determined to stamp out what she described as heresy and sedition. The Separatists went in peril of their lives. They were forced to meet in secret, in private houses, open fields, gravel pits, and occasionally in ships. Many of their Ministers and Deacons were arrested; and imprisonment in those days often meant a slow, lingering death. Indeed many died in prison. Notwithstanding the persecution they were never stamped out. On the contrary, by their courage and faith they won many new adherents. They continued to maintain a firm and unwavering objection first to the Popish practices of the Church and secondly to the relationship of the Church to the State, particularly as regards the Queen's powers in spiritual matters. Read this bold and convincing statement by a Separatist when charged with treason to her majesty:- "Neverthelesse, this is out of doute, that the Quenes highnes hath not authoritie to compell anie man to believe any thing contrary to God's word, neither may the subject give her grace obedience, in case he do his soule is lost for ever without repentaunce. Our bodeys, goodes and lives be at her commaundment, and she shall have them as of true subjects. But the soule of man for religion is bound to none but unto God and his holy word." In this 20th century we have learned to be more tolerant of one another's spiritual beliefs, but in Tudor days toleration was looked upon as weakness. Uniformity was the aim of Church and State, and repressive measures were taken to enforce it. Here is a paragraph from Mackinnal's "The Story of the English Separatists." It shows the difference between the Puritans and Separatists of Tudor days, and I hope the part I have underlined will make you feel proud of our connection with these brave people:- "The difference between Separatists and Catholics - Roman or Anglican - was theological and fundamental. The difference between Separatists and Puritans was political, one of method. The Puritans were for a national Reformation in order to achieve the salvation of individuals; the Separatists sought the individuals and believed that only through their fidelity and spiritual growth could the nation be reformed. In their endeavour they re-discovered and formulated the simple apostolic conception of the Church; from which, since the second century after Christ, Christendom had been departing farther and farther. Our recognition of the nobleness of the two Puritan ideas - the solidarity of the nation and the sanctity of ordination - should not blind us to the superior elevation and courage of the Separatists' faith. They may not have been practised statesmen, but they understood the nature and function of spiritual power. And the true political wisdom proved to be with them. The Reformation movement would have been effectually suppressed if the Puritan dream of a national church had been realised. Every religious revival since the close of the 16th century has ultimately tended to an enlarged freedom of action and an increased sense of responsibility, in the particular congregation. The principle is now almost universally recognised that, for the national well-being as well as for religious prosperity, there must be self-regulating Christian communities, interpreting for themselves the will of God, existing within the state but not using civil power." Although driven underground, these small independent churches were never crushed completely. The history of persecutions the world over and through all the centuries proves that the free spirit of man can never be utterly destroyed. Next month I will try to tell you about some of the martyrs of this period. May God bless you. Your affectionate Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, Although the small groups of Separatists I told you about last month were not Congregational in name, they were so in principle. They claimed they were "gathered churches" and had the right to manage their own internal affairs and to be free from outward control. In the year 1583, Grindel, Archbishop of Canterbury, was succeeded by John Whitgift. The new Archbishop lost no time in persecuting the Separatists and redoubled the efforts of the Church and legislature to stamp them out. One after another their Ministers and Deacons were run to earth and flung into prison. One of their foremost leaders, Robert Brown, a late student of Cambridge University, was actually put in prison thirty-two times, his release on each occasion being due to his high social connections. Eventually to save his life he fled to Middelburg in Holland. Here is an extract concerning sixty of these "poor Christians impressed by the Bishops in sundry London prisons": - "... contrary to all law and equity, between imprisoned, separated from our trades, wives, children and families; yea, shut up close prisoners from all comfort; many of us the space of two years and an half, upon the Bishop's sole commandment, in great penury and noisomeness of the prisons; many ending their lives, never called to trial; some haled forth to the sessions; some cast in irons and dungeons; some in hunger and famine; all of them governors and magistrates from all benefit and help of the laws: daily defamed and falsely accused by published pamphlets, private suggestions, open preaching, slanders and accusations of heresy, sedition, schism and what not. And above all (which most utterly toucheth our salvation) they keep us from all spiritual comfort, and edifying by doctrine, prayer or mutual conference." Two of the heroes of this time were named Greenwood and Barrow. They had been in prison for 7 years when at long last they were tried and condemned to death. Twice they were on the point of being executed - once the rope was actually around their necks - but they were reprieved and sent back to prison. This prison was on the selfsame spot in Farringdon Street where Memorial Hall now stands. In 1593 the sorry farce was ended and they were hanged - their heroic deaths made a great and favourable impression amongst London's population. Another martyr was John Penry, and young man of 34 with a wife and four children. The charge against him was that he "was a seditious disturber as appeared by his schismatical separation from the society of the Church of England and joining the hypocritical and schismatical conventicles of Barrow and Greenwood. By his justifying of Barrow and Greenwood, who suffering worthily for their writings and preachings, are, nevertheless by him reputed as holy martyrs." He was found guilty and hanged on 29th March, 1593. This same year saw more repressive legislation against the Separatists (or as they were by this time called "the Brownists") who it was estimated numbered 20,000 (probably and exaggeration). The legislation said that anyone denying the Queen's power in ecclesiastical matters was to suffer the loss of all his goods and be expelled from the country - the penalty for returning being death. During the next ten years, Congregationalism developed more rapidly on the Continent than in England mainly because many hundreds of exiles had fled with this country. In Amsterdam, for example, there was a congregation of 300 souls. I think I must quote you the following paragraph from Dr. Peel's "History of English Congregationalism":- "Through all these years of persecution there was one force working powerfully. The exiles from Geneva in Mary's reign had translated the Bible into English, and their version, i.e. the Genevan, was being read in England wherever men could read. Edition followed edition, and this puritan translation was more widely read than any other prior to the Authorised Version in 1611. These two versions together produced the result described in J. R. Green's famous dictum that between the middle of Elizabeth's reign and the Long Parliament 'England became the people of one book and that book was the Bible.' Behind all the turmoil of these years there was growing throughout the country a profound faith which rested on the personal experience of men and women who were reading the Bible for themselves." The death of Elizabeth and the accession of James I raised men's hopes of better times, only to disappoint them once more. The Amsterdam Church sent a petition to James asking him to allow them to return and worship in their own way. James ignored the request and carried on the repressive work of Elizabeth, strongly aided by Richard Bancroft who had become Archbishop of Canterbury in 1604. Next month I will tell you of a notable event in the history of the Continental exiles. May God bless you. Your affectionate, Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, Although the small groups of Separatists I told you about last month were not Congregational in name, they were so in principle. They claimed they were "gathered churches" and had the right to manage their own internal affairs and to be free from outward control. In the year 1583, Grindel, Archbishop of Canterbury, was succeeded by John Whitgift. The new Archbishop lost no time in persecuting the Separatists and redoubled the efforts of the Church and legislature to stamp them out. One after another their Ministers and Deacons were run to earth and flung into prison. One of their foremost leaders, Robert Brown, a late student of Cambridge University, was actually put in prison thirty-two times, his release on each occasion being due to his high social connections. Eventually to save his life he fled to Middelburg in Holland. Here is an extract concerning sixty of these "poor Christians impressed by the Bishops in sundry London prisons": - "... contrary to all law and equity, between imprisoned, separated from our trades, wives, children and families; yea, shut up close prisoners from all comfort; many of us the space of two years and an half, upon the Bishop's sole commandment, in great penury and noisomeness of the prisons; many ending their lives, never called to trial; some haled forth to the sessions; some cast in irons and dungeons; some in hunger and famine; all of them governors and magistrates from all benefit and help of the laws: daily defamed and falsely accused by published pamphlets, private suggestions, open preaching, slanders and accusations of heresy, sedition, schism and what not. And above all (which most utterly toucheth our salvation) they keep us from all spiritual comfort, and edifying by doctrine, prayer or mutual conference." Two of the heroes of this time were named Greenwood and Barrow. They had been in prison for 7 years when at long last they were tried and condemned to death. Twice they were on the point of being executed - once the rope was actually around their necks - but they were reprieved and sent back to prison. This prison was on the selfsame spot in Farringdon Street where Memorial Hall now stands. In 1593 the sorry farce was ended and they were hanged - their heroic deaths made a great and favourable impression amongst London's population. Another martyr was John Penry, and young man of 34 with a wife and four children. The charge against him was that he "was a seditious disturber as appeared by his schismatical separation from the society of the Church of England and joining the hypocritical and schismatical conventicles of Barrow and Greenwood. By his justifying of Barrow and Greenwood, who suffering worthily for their writings and preachings, are, nevertheless by him reputed as holy martyrs." He was found guilty and hanged on 29th March, 1593. This same year saw more repressive legislation against the Separatists (or as they were by this time called "the Brownists") who it was estimated numbered 20,000 (probably and exaggeration). The legislation said that anyone denying the Queen's power in ecclesiastical matters was to suffer the loss of all his goods and be expelled from the country - the penalty for returning being death. During the next ten years, Congregationalism developed more rapidly on the Continent than in England mainly because many hundreds of exiles had fled with this country. In Amsterdam, for example, there was a congregation of 300 souls. I think I must quote you the following paragraph from Dr. Peel's "History of English Congregationalism":- "Through all these years of persecution there was one force working powerfully. The exiles from Geneva in Mary's reign had translated the Bible into English, and their version, i.e. the Genevan, was being read in England wherever men could read. Edition followed edition, and this puritan translation was more widely read than any other prior to the Authorised Version in 1611. These two versions together produced the result described in J. R. Green's famous dictum that between the middle of Elizabeth's reign and the Long Parliament 'England became the people of one book and that book was the Bible.' Behind all the turmoil of these years there was growing throughout the country a profound faith which rested on the personal experience of men and women who were reading the Bible for themselves." The death of Elizabeth and the accession of James I raised men's hopes of better times, only to disappoint them once more. The Amsterdam Church sent a petition to James asking him to allow them to return and worship in their own way. James ignored the request and carried on the repressive work of Elizabeth, strongly aided by Richard Bancroft who had become Archbishop of Canterbury in 1604. Next month I will tell you of a notable event in the history of the Continental exiles. May God bless you. Your affectionate, Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, You will remember that last month I mentioned how a large congregation of exile from England had been formed in Amsterdam. Unfortunately, many bitter quarrels rent the peace of the Amsterdam Church. We must not be hard in our judgement of them. Rather should we bear in mind what years of hardship really meant. Many were living in direst poverty, and they were in a foreign country. It is easy to see how almost trifling things would strain temperaments to breaking point. In 1609 a group of these exiles left behind the squabbles of the Amsterdam Church and settled in Leyden. This is important because it is to the exiles of Leyden that we owe that glorious chapter of Independent History - the sailing of the Mayflower. The power of James I had even followed the exiles to Holland, and they found life very hard and bleak. They decided, therefore, to sail for the New World and found their own colony. The story of the sailing of the Mayflower in 1620 has often been told, and it would take too long to tell it here. In any case it deserves a series of letters itself. Suffice it is to say that from that small beginning has come the great Republic of United States of America, and also American Congregationalism, which today is helping English Congregationalism so powerfully. One thing perhaps I should mention. In your own church you will find a brass tablet to the memory of these heroic men and women. It was placed in the church in 1920, then the ter-centenary of the Pilgrim Fathers was being celebrated all over this country and America. On that plate you will find the name of a local man who was one of their number. Over the next twenty years or so Independency grew in numbers and in strength. In 1631 it is known there were eleven congregations, and there were probably many more. They were still meeting in secret although perhaps persecution was not so rigorously applied. At this time men's aspirations were beginning to turn towards civil liberties and religious liberties were pushed to the background. Charles I was on the throne, and his insistence on the Divine right of Kings and the truly amazing folly of he Archbishop Laud made civil liberty the foremost political question of the hour. Quite naturally Independents, who had suffered for generations because of their religious views, now took a prominent part in the struggle for civil rights. Independency came rapidly to the front and became the spearhead of the opposition to the King, and began to have a political flavour. I quote from Dr. Peel: - "When Parliament asked for Scottish aid and were told it would be granted if Presbyterianism were established, it was inevitable that men, sick of the quarrel between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism, should say 'A plague on both your houses - we will be independent of you both.' Then Independency had been brought into the limelight in the Westminster Assembly of 1643. That Assembly was appointed by Parliament to consider the liturgy, discipline, and government of the Church. It consisted almost wholly of Presbyterianism, but a group of Independents, especially five - Phillip Nye, Thomas Goodwin, William Bridge, Jeremiah Burrows and Sidrach Simpson - counted for far more than their number. They agreed with the majority in matters of doctrine, but they were almost alone in believing that every company of Christian men and women assembled for mutual fellowship and worship is a church and stands in immediate responsibility to Jesus Christ, is responsible to Him alone, and is under the most solemn obligation to allow no authority - Pope, Bishop, Council Assembly or Synod - to come between Christ and Himself. These arguments were pressed with so much fervour and force that, though they could not convince the assembly, they drew the attention of men of all classes to the Independent contentions." The Civil War ended with Cromwell, an independent, in power as Protector. At one time it looked as if Presbyterianism would take chief place, but Cromwell altered that. Cromwell's Ironsides were composed largely of Independents, and I give here Dr. Dale's description of them: - "It was largely composed of men who had a grave belief that they had been called of God to rescue the nation from the tyranny of the King and to secure for the 'saints' liberty to worship according to the commandment of men. At the root of their religious life was an intense faith in the illumination granted by the Divine Spirit to every Christian man to Christ by the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Christian Church. They saw, or thought they saw, that the usurpation by the clergy and the civil magistrates of the powers and responsibilities which Christ had entrusted to all Godly men, had been the cause of immeasurable evils. By the authority of the Bishops, sustained by the Crown, superstitions ceremonies had been forced on the nation. Godly ministers who refused to submit were silenced and subjected to cruel persecution, while men of scandalous lives, who knew nothing of the power and glory of Christ, were suffered to retain their pulpits and their tithes. It was not clear to them that Presbytery with the hierarchy of the Courts, was very much better than Episcopacy. The Spirit of God given to all that are 'in Christ' was not to be fettered by 'Confessions', 'Covenants' and 'Directories' of worship. Freedom must be left to the devout and adventurous soul to follow the guidance of the Spirit whenever the Spirit might lead." Next month I will try and tell you a little of how Independency acted during its brief span of power. May God bless you. Your affectionate, Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, We left our story last month at the period of the Commonwealth when under Cromwell Independency had come to power. It would not have been surprising if in these circumstances it had shown itself harsh towards its oppressors, and it is to its credit that it did not do so. It had lived through nearly two centuries of bitter persecution and it lived in an age when toleration was almost unknown. But Cromwell drew the line only at Popery - that he would not tolerate. He proclaimed that all Protestants of whatever sect should have freedom and protection in their ministries so long as they did not promote Popery or Prelacy. Baptists, Presbyterians, Independents and Anglicans were appointed to Church Livings and they were allowed to organise their Churches as they desired. Anglicans were even allowed to use the Book of Common Prayer. Only minister who endeavoured to set up Popish practices were summarily ejected. Of course, this created many anomalies. There were in existence "gathered churches" entirely unconnected with the Parish Church and in cases where Independent ministers had been appointed to Parish Churches all kinds of compromises regarding the place of worship and income of the ministers were to be found. Two Congregational Churches met in Westminster Abbey and Exeter Cathedral respectively. A Congregational minister was appointed Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and another became Cromwell's Chaplain at Whitehall. The religious toleration allowed during the Commonwealth was greater than anything England had experiences before. Dr. Peel says this:- "In the year of Cromwell's death 200 representatives of 120 Independent Churches met in London and drew up a detailed and careful statement of the 'Institutions of Churches and the Orders appointed them by Jesus Christ.' It is in effect a scholarly statement of Congregational principles and it is a landmark of the growth of our denomination. Dr. Dale says of it: 'In its fullness and precision it is perhaps the most admirable statement of the ecclesiastical principles of English Congregationalism'." On the death of Cromwell the people clamoured for the restoration of the Monarchy and great was their delight on the accession of Charles II. But this delight was short lived. Oliver Cromwell had many faults, but at least he was trusted and respected throughout the land. Charles soon made his name to be detested. Cromwell's Ironsides were disbanded but this had the effect of dispersing throughout the country a leavening of men, sober and god fearing, who had a marked influence on all with whom they came in contact. Repressive legislation was soon rushed through Parliament and it was not long before it began to press heavily on all Nonconformists. The Corporation Act, 1661 prevented anyone holding a municipal office unless he had taken Communion according to the rites of the Anglican Church. The Act of Uniformity, 1662 made every clergyman and schoolmaster give his assent to the Book of Common Prayer or be deposed from his office. The Conventicle Act, 1664, and the Five-mile Act, 1665, contained further measures against Nonconformity - the former giving authorities power to transport offenders out of the country. It is the Act of Uniformity, 1662, that is important to us today. On the appointed day, 24th August 1662, over 2,000 clergy left their livings and refused to conform. Of these 2,000 it is estimated about 500 were Congregational. In actual fact 380 have been identified. One of these 380 is the founder of your own Church in Romford. Rev. Blackmore, who held a living in London, refused to conform, left his Church and came to live in London. He gathered a few Independents around him and founded the Romford Congregational Church of which he was the first minister. It is something to be proud of to belong to a "1662 Church." When you join it you join a Church with a great and proud history and inspiring traditions. Next month I will tell you how persecution ended and was followed by decay, which in its turn was followed by a great revival. Your affectionate Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, During the reign of Charles II thousands of Nonconformists were imprisoned for failure to comply with the various Acts of Parliament aimed at their extinction - and imprisonment often meant death. There is an estimate that between five and eight thousand died in prison during Charles' reign. Yet, although driven underground they were never exterminated. One of the noted men of the time was John Bunyan who, during imprisonment, wrote that most famous and well loved book "Pilgrim's Progress". Bunyan was later called to be minister of the Congregational Church at Bedford, a church which bears his name to this day. In 1665 occurred the Great Plague of London. Many clergymen fled from their Churches in panic and in the general breakdown of the city's normal life which the plague caused, many Nonconformists slipped into the vacant pulpits. Their courage in visitation and work during this period made a great impression and may have resulted in the Declaration of Indulgence of 1672 which gave them three years of liberty. During these three years many new Independent Churches were formed but in 1675 persecution broke out again and went on for another 10 years. Then in 1685 James II (a Roman Catholic) came to the throne and in trying his best to help the Roman Catholics he was obliged (probably unwillingly) to give Non-conformists some relief. A few years after, James II lost his throne to William of Orange (a Protestant) and in 1689 the Toleration Act relieved them of persecution. There was, however, nothing generous about the Toleration Act. It did nothing more than make them safe from further persecution but there was still a lot of feeling against them and they had to suffer many indignities. Many times their meetings were broken up and socially they were almost outcasts among their fellows, but they were safe. Now Nonconformity began to grow apace. The three main denominations, Presbyterian, Independents and Baptists, built about 1,000 churches (or meeting houses) in the 20 years following the Toleration Act. In the main the congregations were small and the churches poor; the services were simple to the point of austerity; the sermons and prayers were long. Now, strangely enough a blight fell on Independent Churches. The great progress of the previous 20 years was halted - slowly but surely decay began to set in. Dr. Peel describes it thus:- "Persecution had stiffened Nonconformist convictions; tolerance resulted in the weakening and slackening of moral fibre. The old religious earnestness disappeared, as did the sense of joy and privilege in belonging to a Church composed of Christian believers. It is as true as it is suggestive that 'An enquiry into the Cause of the Decay of the Dissenting Interest' (1730) gives as the first and primary cause 'Ignorance of their own principles'." A further reason for the decay was a social one. The old Independent stalwarts had died and their children did not possess the convictions of their fathers. They found that as Independents they were looked upon as "cranks" - the social pull of the Anglican Church had its effects and many members and even some ministers went over to the Church of England. The whole of Christianity in this country was at a low ebb. The old burning zeal had been lost. The old insistence on purity of life had disappeared. Men were careless of religion, prayer and worship. They ceased to be scrupulous about their amusements and began to worship the gods of pleasure and money. Men had in fact, for a time, lost the sense of God's presence. And here, perhaps, I can break my narration for a short space. As I wrote this description of religious life in the early 18th century, I was struck with its similarity to our own times now. Are we going through a similar phase today? Are we today putting too much stress on material things, on getting on in life? Have we of this generation lost the sense of God's presence? Perhaps you young people will just put this down to the moralising of an older man. It may be so, but I feel this generation has lost something and we have to find it before the great revival can start. Come it will I am certain. There is more than personal faith in this statement. It is the lesson history teaches. Certainly a great Evangelical revival came in the 18th century. Wesley and Whitefield went through the land proclaiming the gospel with passionate intensity. The Sunday School movement commenced and men's thoughts turned towards missionary work. Revival spread throughout the length and breadth of our land. Congregationalists played a great part in this revival and Independent Churches acquired a keen sense of their responsibility for the Evangelisation of the world. Suddenly Congregationalists saw the terrific magnitude of the task ahead and they saw that while a Church independent and alone could deal with the problems in its own immediate neighbourhood something larger was required if the task of evangelising the world was to be attempted. How we faced up to that task and its results I will tell you in my next letter. Ever your affectionate Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, We come now to the last few years of the 18th century and the first 30 or so of the 19th. Up to now each Independent Church had been a little unit of its own, its horizon mainly limited to the particular locality in which it was situated. It had little or no contact with and not much knowledge of other Independent Churches. The first step in doing something together was the formation of the London Missionary Society (affectionately known to us as the L.M.S.) in the year 1795. While Independent Churches formed the backbone of its support among its sponsors were many other Evangelical Churches. This was in itself a big step forward and it had the result of showing clearly that together Independent Churches could do things it was impossible to do alone. In the early 19th century Independents began to realise that there was a real and desperate need for Home as well as Foreign missions. Local churches near enough to be able to work together formed small associations from which itinerant preachers and evangelists were sent out to spread the gospel. A first these associations were nothing more than a "getting together" of a few ministers but gradually over the years they became more ambitious until finally they blossomed out into full County Unions. In the first 20 years of the 19th century many large County Unions came into existence and did grand work for the extension of Congregationalism in their particular County. Naturally as the years went by there grew up a demand for a larger Union. One that would combine all the county unions into one for the Country. There were many reasons for the growth of this demand, among them being:- (a) The growth of the Wesleyan Methodists, who, tightly controlled from a central office, were able to produce convincing statistics of their strength and membership - something which the Independent Churches were unable to do; (b) the fact that many itinerant preachers sent out by local or County Unions were having a very difficult time. They experienced hostility and opposition, sometimes very bitter, from Anglican Churches, and this brought Independent Churches more and more together in sympathy and fellowship; (c) the outstanding success of the L.M.S. which by now was well established and showing Independents what could be done by getting together. But there were great objections to a full union from many of the Independents themselves. One of the strongest arguments against Union was that they were independent and that by joining together they would lose their independency and become merely another "sect". Many attempts were made, many schemes drawn up but all came to nothing. But the movement for Union was too strong to be resisted indefinitely; indeed in the long run it was inevitable. In the year 1832 it became an accomplished fact when the first Congregational Union of England and Wales was formed. Its constitution was very carefully drawn up. Under each Church retained its independency to govern its own affairs, appoint its own ministers and worship as it desired. The powers of the Union were very strictly limited to matters that concerned the Churches as a whole. One of the safeguards was that the Union was not to become a legislative authority or a court of appeal. During the last 100 years various amendments to the Constitution have been made. In the main these have tended to give more power and authority to the Union, but through all the years independency of the local churches has been jealously safeguarded. I will try and tell you a little of the work of the Union in my next letter. You affectionate, Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, As you know I came to South Street Church last Sunday to hear you make your promise and to see you receive the right hand of fellowship, and during that short ceremony I saw something else. I glanced at your mother and father and saw them thrilled with joy as they watched their children joining the same family Church where they themselves had worshipped for so long. I saw the light of thankfulness in their eyes that the great decisions had been made and heard in the prayer in their hearts that our Heavenly Father would give those children help and strength to fight the good fight in the years ahead. You will need those prayers, for the Christian way of life is not easy. Never forget that Christ needs you young people, too. He needs the passion and enthusiasm of youth for it is to you we shall have to look now for the Great Revival of the 20th century. Now I am almost to the last of my letters and I must hurry on for my self imposed task is nearly finished. We now come to the history of the last 100 years or so. Some of it is within the memory of those older members of the Churches still with us today. To cover adequately the activities of the Congregational Union of England and Wales would take a long time and I can only give you the barest outline. To start with it covers a period of over 100 years. During these years the tendency of Congregational Churches has been towards the centre. I do not think it could be challenged if I say that in recent years the tide has been running stronger than ever in this direction. Here is a list of some of the outstanding achievements of the Union:-
"The growth of these funds and the increased activities of the National and County Unions provide one of the supreme tests for Congregationalism. It is not easy for a Union to allow a Church to be independent when it is being furnished with financial aid and when perhaps it persists in doing things which appear foolish to the Union's officers. With every increase in the central funds and in the power of organised Congregationalism there must be a corresponding increase in the vigour of the independent churches, a renewed sense of the presence of Christ in the midst of His people, if true Congregationalism is to survive. With more provision made for the support and superannuation of ministers there must be a parallel increase in the spirit of adventure in the Ministry if the work of the Church of Christ is to be adequately performed. If the churches come to rely on Unions for support rather than on their own efforts allies to the leading of the Divine Spirit, the time of decay is at hand. If Congregationalism ever becomes a safe and static things it is doomed. With every improvement in organisation for increase of efficiency in denominational machinery, there must be in the churches a more alert understanding of the Will of God, a speedier grasping of opportunities of service and a more ready adaptation to changing circumstances." And here are two further extracts from the same source:- "In forms of worship, too, there have been developments, though here perhaps the greatest conservatism of all is manifest. There is, however, an increasing willingness to make use of both silence and of some liturgical elements in the worship of the churches, and the old uniformity with its two lessons and a 'long prayer' is breaking down. It is recognised that here again Congregationalism must be willing to experiment. Forms of worship are not sacrosanct, whether they have come down unchanged for a couple of centuries or whether they arrive steaming hot from a Country Secretary's office or a Moderators' meeting. Once again the churches have to be prepared to be led by the Spirit into new ways." And the second extract:- "We have seen that Congregationalism has no formal creed. It does not believe that men said in the first, the fourth, or the sixteenth century the final word about the things of God. It holds that the Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth and is still making His ways known to men." Next month I shall conclude these letters with a brief summary of Congregationalism and what it stands for. Your affectionate Uncle Dear Jack and Betty, Originally I had intended to finish this series of letters last month, but I feel an urge to write one more. It is going to be the hardest of all and it is not a history lesson this time. My urge is to write to you on the subject of your responsibilities and privileges as members of South Street Congregational Church, and of the part you must play if membership is going to be real and dedicated service. These letters of mine will have failed in their purpose if you have not, by now, realised that our forefathers, the original Separatists, had a deep spiritual conception of the Church, a more serious sense of responsibility and a deeper realisation of the privileges attaching to membership than had existed for many generations. First of all a Congregational Church is implicitly a Covenanted Church. That is, we have covenanted together and with God, believing as we do that God has redeemed His people and that we have accepted our redemption from and through His Son Jesus Christ. Our covenant not only concerns our own individual lives - i.e. we promise to live individually with God - but also that as a Church we live under the guidance of His Spirit. Then we make no tests of creeds. That does not mean we do not believe in the great Christian Creeds, because we do. We do not, however, make them a test of membership. More important than creeds is the individual quality of one's life. As Church members we accept from Christ Himself the principle that only life and its quality can be an adequate test for Church membership. You may think from this that Congregationalism, as compared to other communions, has a faith somewhat nebulous not to say anarchic. We have sometimes been described by the ignorant as a communion in which "nobody believes anything in particular." As a matter of fact nothing could be more erroneous. It is just not true that we have been led astray in matters of faith. On the contrary history shows we have always kept in the mid-stream of Christian belief. The error of our critics arises, of course, from our unwillingness to adopt creeds and standards of faith. Yet we have always been willing to draw up statements of faith for both individuals and Churches. What we distrust and resist is any attempt to elevate common doctrinal statements into a confession which it is essential to subscribe to as a condition of membership. From the 16th century onwards, all kinds of confessions and declarations of Congregationalism have been drawn up, but always there has been a tendency to let them fall into disuse. The truth is that we cannot enforce any doctrine or creed on our individual Churches and each Church feels a strong repugnance to coerce individual members. I think that Congregationalists are among the most passionate lovers of freedom - political or religious. Is not this understandable when you look back on our history? May I quote the following from a little publication of Independent Press:- "Covenants are only made by free men and from what has gone before the Congregational understanding of freedom should be clear. Freedom for Congregationalists is an obligation. We must be free to worship in ways acceptable to the Holy Spirit; we must be free to listen to and obey the Spirit and we must be free to give God full obedience. Freedom is the necessary condition of our full and happy obedience to God; the means of making the sovereignty of God actual in the world." If we are distrustful of creeds and passionate in our love of freedom, there is one matter on which we hold strong views, that is the Church Meeting. In no other communion, with the exception of our friends the Baptists, will you find anything like it. It is at once our pride and glory, the very raison d'etre of our existence, and it is most important that you young people should know and understand what a Church Meeting really is. It has so often been likened to a democracy that I must hasten to say that a Congregational Church should not be governed by its members (as in a democratic state) but by the Holy Spirit whose will is made known through her members. We should come to a Church Meeting not to air out own views, nor with the express purpose of voting to prevent Mr. X from getting his way, but to wait patiently on the Lord so that we speak as men and women possessed of God's will. There is a solemn trust laid upon us of devoting and sanctifying every power of mind and heart in fellowship of thought and prayer, seeking after God's will, praying that God will give us the grace to see it and follow it when it is known. Often we are so chained to earthly things and so lack His grace that we are wilfully blind to His clear and unmistakable call. Now, my dear children, let me warn you that when you go to your first Church Meeting you will probably be bitterly disappointed and disillusioned. Here I have set forth an ideal; in practice you will find things fall very short of this ideal. That, of course, is the measure of our failure, but is it not also a challenge and an opportunity for the future? You may find in South Street Church that varying people have entirely different conceptions of what Church membership really means. Here is a little extract from a recent article in the Christian World, which to me sums up the position. "In no Church is any man a member save as he confesses in word, honest intention and life his will to make Christ his Lord. But in a Congregational Church something more is required. We covenant with God and with one another to do the will of God, and that involves us in the DUTY of attending the Church Meeting. No, I have used the word 'duty'. I must take it back and use the word 'delight'. It is imperative that attendance at Church meeting should come before any other consideration of any other kind at all. But the imperative is an inward necessity, for our delight is in the company of God's people." Well, my dear children, this is the end of my series. You are on the threshold of a most wonderful experience. It will give you great and abiding happiness as well as moments of despair and doubt. There will be times when on the heights you will see the Kingdom of God, but there will be valleys to go through which will test your faith to the uttermost. That our Heavenly Father will ever by your strength and stay is the earnest prayer of Your ever loving Uncle N.B. - As this is the last in this series of articles, it is right that you should know the name of the author: Mr. P. L. Brown [Church Secretary at Romford Congregational Church]. The following books have been used by him, and are recommended to those who require further information:- A Brief History of English Congregationalism - by Albert Peel History of English Congregationalism - by R. W. Dale A Manual of Congregational Church Principles - by R. W. Dale A Popular History of the Free Churches - by C. Silvester Horne Three Hundred Years - by Albert Peel
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
©Copyright
We are happy for you to use any material found here, however, please acknowledge the source: www.gantshillurc.co.uk AuthorRev'd Martin Wheadon Archives
June 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed