23 April 2024: We are investigating problems with ecommerce on Cambridge Core. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope to have full functionality restored shortly.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
As founder of ‘the first continuing Congregational church on English soil’ in the London suburb of Southwark in 1616, Henry Jacob has figured prominently in denominational hagiography. His place in the wider circle of puritan scholarship has also been secured by virtue of this radically new ecclesiological experiment in puritan Congregationalism which, by most historical accounts, signalled a drastic departure from the prevailing presbyterianism of the Cartwright generation of left-wing puritanism. While his shift into a more progressive, democratic ecclesiological mode has appeared self-evident to many historians, those scholars intrigued by Jacob's churchmanship have often puzzled over the source of his new polity. Among an earlier generation of historians, the obvious solution seemed to be that Jacob had at some point borrowed from the Separatists, adopting their ecclesiology while declining their practice of separatism. This conclusion arose primarily from the assumption (which persists today) that before Jacob's Southwark church formed, Congregationalism was alone the preserve of late Tudor and early Stuart separatism. Daniel Neal became one of the first to suggest this, explaining that Jacob probably derived his Congregationalism from the Separatists by way of John Robinson at Leyden, where the two had met in 1610.
1 Rohr, John von, ‘The Congregationalism of Henry Jacob’, Transactions of the Congregational Historical Society, xix (1962), 107Google Scholar; Horton, Douglas, Congregationalism: a study in church polity, London 1952, 52Google Scholar. For an updated treatment of the genealogical significance of Jacob’s Southwark Congregation in seventeenth-century nonconformity see Tolmie, Murray, The Triumph of the Saints, Cambridge 1977Google Scholar.
2 Neal, Daniel, The History of the Puritans, London 1794, ii. 47Google Scholar.
3 Burrage, Champlin, The Early English Dissenters, Cambridge 1912, i. 281, 292Google Scholar. Examples of earlier historians who followed Neal’s interpretation include Waddington, John, Congregational History, 1567–1700, London 1874, 177Google Scholar; Dexter, H. M., The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Tears, London 1880, 635Google Scholar.
4 Miller, Perry, Errand into the Wilderness, New York 1964, 17Google Scholar; see also, idem, Orthodoxy in Massachusetts, New York 1970, p. xxix, where Miller acknowledged that his book ‘has in reality been a development of the hints’ he received from Burrage’s work.
5 Miller, Orthodoxy, 75.
6 Horton, Congregationalism, 70; von Rohr, ‘Congregationalism of Henry Jacob’, 107.
7 John von Rohr, ‘Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus: an early congregational version’, Church History (hereafter cited as C.H.), xxxvi (1967), 117–19.
8 Paul, Robert S., ‘Henry Jacob and seventeenth-century puritanism’, Hartford Quarterly, vii (1967), 112Google Scholar; White, B. R., The English Separatist Tradition, Oxford 1971, 91, 165–7Google Scholar. White is representative of what has been a more moderate response to the Burrage-Miller thesis characteristic of English scholars such as Nuttall, G. F., Visible Saints, 1640–1660, Oxford 1957, 7Google Scholar; Jones, R. Tudor, Congregationalism in England, 1662–1962, London 1962, 20Google Scholar; and Payne, Ernest A., Free Churchmen, Repentant and Unrepentant, London 1965, 94Google Scholar.
9 Yarbrough, Slayden A., ‘The ecclesiastical development in theory and practice of John Robinson and Henry Jacob’, Perspectives in Religious Studies, v (1978), 183–97Google Scholar; Watts, Michael R., The Dissenters, Oxford 1978, 51–2, 55Google Scholar, though elsewhere he admits that the origins of what he calls ‘Jacobite’ ecclesiology are not known, 53; Tolmie, Triumph of the Saints, 7–12. See also W. R. Goehring, ‘Henry Jacob (1563–1624) and the Separatists’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University 1975, who rather uncritically adopted the position of Bun-age and Miller.
10 Michael Watts cited John Cotton, The Way of the Congregational Churches Clear’d, London 1648, 8, as proof that the Jacob-Ames party had been influenced by the Separatists; Watts, Dissenters, 55. It is true that Cotton said Ames and Robert Parker had ‘received… some things’ from John Robinson during their Leyden talks in 1610, but one should be careful not to make too much of this since Cotton did not indicate the extent or significance of what they learned from the Separatist. More importantly, Ames, Jacob and probably Parker had already developed their polity in full before meeting Robinson.
11 Jacob, Henry, A Declaration and Plainer Opening, Middelburg 1611, 5–6Google Scholar.
12 Miller, Orthodoxy, 78 (the spelling, capitalisation and punctuation of all sixteenth- and seventeenth-century quotations have been modernised in this paper). See also, Watts, Dissenters, 53–4. Ames’ statement comes from his preface to William Bradshaw’s English Puritanisme, 1605. Miller attributed the words to Bradshaw, but the preface was written by Ames. See Sprunger, Keith, The Learned Doctor William Ames, Urbana, Illinois 1972, 136Google Scholar.
13 A more detailed discussion of the interpretation of Ames’s remark may be found in Stephen Brachlow, ‘Puritan theology and radical churchmen in pre-revolutionary England’, unpublished D.Phil, thesis, Oxford University 1978, 102–5.
14 Hill, Christopher, ‘History and denominational history’, The Baptist Quarterly, xxii (1967–1968), 65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 See David Hall’s introduction to the Harper Torchbook edition of Orthodoxy in Massachusetts, pp. xiv-xix, for an excellent critique of Miller’s methodology.
16 Patrick Collinson, ‘A comment: concerning the name puritan’, this Journal, xxxi (1980), 486. See also Finlayson, Michael G., ‘Puritanism and puritans: labels or libels?’, Canadian Journal of History, viii (1973), 201–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wilson, John F., ‘Another Look at John Canne’, C.H., xxxiii (1964), 34–48Google Scholar, who argue for a more dynamic understanding of puritanism.
17 For example, the dichotomy haunts Paul Christianson’s recent attempt at clarifying the taxonomy of the Elizabethan and early Stuart religious spectrum. See Paul Christianson, ‘Reformers and the Church of England under Elizabeth I and the early Stuarts’, this Journal, xxxi (1980), 463–82; esp. p. 477. Basil Hall’s influential essay ‘Puritanism: the problem of definition’, in G. J. Cuming (ed.), Studies in Church History, London 1965, ii. 284–96, has probably done much to perpetuate the view that all Elizabethan puritans were Presbyterians. His perception, however, was based on a serious misreading of a statement made by the Separatist, John Robinson. See Brachlow, ‘Puritan theology and radical churchmen’, 7.
18 The same point needs to be emphasised with reference to the evolution of Separatist ecclesiology. John Robinson, for example, indicated that the theoretical underpinnings of Separatist churchmanship were developed in the writings of first- and second-generation puritans; Robinson, John, A justification of separation, Amsterdam 1610, 76Google Scholar, evidence which would lend some support to Bancroft’s observation that while the puritans were at odds with the Brownists over the issue of separation, they favoured a similar form of polity. See Peel, Albert, Tracts Ascribed to Richard Bancroft, Cambridge 1953, 18–19Google Scholar.
19 Bradshaw, English Puritanisme, preface. Ames also admitted that’ most of those and those most celebrious, were not so rigid in all things’ as Bradshaw. This has been taken to support Miller’s thesis. But Ames’s meaning is not clear. It seems likely that he was not referring here to the Elizabethan puritans but to an earlier generation of English reformers whom he had listed previously that included Wycliff, Tyndale, Rogers, Bradford, Goodman, Gilby, Foxe and others who were, in the minds of most puritans, ‘those most celebrious’. On the whole, these earlier Tudor Protestants were revered by Elizabethan radical puritans for their doctrinal purity but not so warmly praised for their churchmanship because the radicals believed they had retained many of the corruptions of Rome. In spite of this fault, they were, nevertheless, accounted true saints by Elizabethan and early Stuart puritans because it was believed that Wycliff, Tyndale and the others had not yet received ‘further light’ about the organisation of the church. See The Second Parte of a Register, ed. Albert Peel, Cambridge 1915, i. 96; Collinson, Patrick, A Mirror of Elizabethan Puritanism, London 1964, 27Google Scholar.
20 Register of the University of Oxford, ed. Clark, Andrew, London 1887–1888, vol. ii, 111Google Scholar, and part iii, 116; Corpus Christi College, Oxford, Admissions Register, 1517–1647, MS, not paginated.
21 The next precentor entered in the Corpus Christi Admissions Register was one Edward Send(?) on 3 July 1590, which may indicate that Jacob had left the college by that time. Ibid.
22 Wood, Anthony, Alhenae Oxonienses, London 1721, i. 464Google Scholar.
23 See the D.N.B. article on Henry Jacob by Gordon Goodwin.
24 Benjamin Brook appears to be the earliest source of this tradition. See his Lives of the Puritans, London 1813, ii. 330Google Scholar. Those who have accepted it include Gordon Goodwin in his D.N.B. article on Jacob; W. T. Whitley, ‘Records of the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey Church, 1616–1641’, Transactions of the Baptist Historical Society, i (1908–9), 260; G. F. Nut tall, Visible Saints, 52; and Manning, R. B., Religion and Society in Elizabethan Sussex, Leicester 1969, 208Google Scholar.
25 See above, n. 11.
26 For Jacob’s visit to Johnson, see Jacob, Henry, A defence of the churches and ministry of Englande, Middelburg 1599, 3Google Scholar.
27 Alarmed by the implicit Christological docetism of Bilson’s sermon, Jacob wrote a short rejoinder in 1598 followed by an expanded version in 1600. See Goehring, ‘Henry Jacob’, 75–85.
28 The title page of his Defence of the churches, 1599, included the statement: ‘Published, especially for the benefit of those in these parts of the low countries’. This, of course, is by no means conclusive evidence that Jacob was in Holland at that time since there is no indication whether the statement was made by Jacob or the publisher, Daniel Bucke, who then resided in Middelburg. For Bucke see Burrage, Early English Dissenters, i. 282–3.
29 This is based on the statement made by Jacob in his An attestation of many learned, godly and famous divines, Middelburg 1613, 313Google Scholar: ‘As touching dutiful affection to the king’s person, none can say more (if he list) than D. Downame himself in my particular. Yea, what words I spoke when he held his peace to a noble lord of Scotland. When neither of us dare be seen nor heard abroad, for fear of whom? Verily of those who were his best friends since. If I was then so dutifully animated toward the king when we only hoped for his Majesty.’ Downame was a prebendary at St Paul’s at the time. The implication seems to be that the conversation to which Jacob is referring took place in London when Elizabeth was near death.
30 Burrage, Early English Dissenters, ii. 146–8.
31 Knappen, M. M., Tudor Puritanism, Chicago 1939, 322Google Scholar; Collinson, Patrick, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, London 1967, 452Google Scholar.
32 Jacob, Henry, Reasons taken out of Gods Word, Middelburg 1604, 83Google Scholar.
33 Burrage, ‘Lost prison papers of Henry Jacob’, Review and Expositor (1908), 492; also Jacob, Reasons, ‘To the high and mightie Prince James’, not paginated.
34 Manning, Religion and Society, 208.
35 State Papers Domestic, James I, iii. 83. This would have been the second time that Jacob had come to the notice of Bancroft if the rather humorous story related by Ephraim Pagitt is true. According to Pagitt, a London vicar complained to Bancroft, then bishop of London, that Jacob had refused to kneel while receiving the eucharist. Much to his surprise, the vicar found himself reprimanded, rather than Jacob, for a breach of order; Bancroft it seems was more incensed by the failure of the vicar to follow established procedures in reporting the matter than he was by Jacob’s infringement of liturgical practice. See Pagitt, Ephraim, Heresiography, or a description of the heretics and sectaries of these latter times, London 1645, 75–6Google Scholar.
36 Burrage, Early English Dissenters, ii. 148–9.
37 Thomas Bilson, who had been involved with Jacob in the skirmish over Christ’s descent into hell, was apparently encouraged by the earl of Salisbury to write the reply to Reasons. He was not overjoyed at the prospect and wrote to the earl: ‘I am not willing to take any pains which my years may bear…The man [Jacob] is only a man of bold face, and his book a packet of words grounded on his own good liking, having neither sap nor substance his humour of much prating and little proving that I forsee what a world of words the cause will come unto.’ Cited in Babbage, Stuart Barton, Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, London 1962, 141Google Scholar. Two years later Jacob was still waiting for Bilson’s rebuttal, see Jacob, Henry, A Christian and modest offer of a most indifferent conference, Middelburg 1606, 32Google Scholar. Apparently Bilson never produced.
38 Burrage, Early English Dissenters, ii. 151–3.
39 Jacob, Henry, An humble supplication, Middelburg 1609, 8Google Scholar.
40 For the reaction of James I see his marginal notes penned in his personal copy of An humble supplication, now lodged in the Lambeth Palace Library, London.
41 ‘Governor Bradford’s first dialogue’, in Old South Leaflets, Boston n.d., 14. Bradford does not actually say that they stayed with members of Robinson’s Separatist congregation, but only that they stayed with ‘some of our acquaintance’. Ibid. Very likely their acquaintances were members of the English Reformed Church in Leyden. See Sprunger, Keith L., ‘Other pilgrims in Leiden: Hugh Goodyear and the English Reformed Church’, C.H., xli (1972), 46–60Google Scholar.
42 Regent’s Park College, Oxford, Stinton MSS, ‘A Repository’, 2. The item itself is undated, but entered prior to 1616. There is no evidence to support Robert S. Paul’s assertion that Jacob conferred with Robinson in London in the year 1616. Paul, ‘Henry Jacob’, 96, 105.
43 Jacob addressed the preface: ‘To my Christian and beloved friends in London and elsewhere in England’ and signed it ‘July 18, Anno. 1612’. Jacob, Attestation, Sig. A2–3.
44 Brook, Lives of the Puritans, ii. 330.
45 Burrage, Early English Dissenters, ii. 290. Burrage later changed his mind, believing that ‘Jacob may have gone to Holland in 1606, instead of 1605’. Ibid., ii. 166. He based this on the discovery of an MS document in Lambeth Palace, the date of which he apparently believed implied that Jacob was in England up to that point. The document, however, said nothing about Jacob’s move to Holland. Others who have followed this tradition include Stearns, R. P., Congregationalism in the Dutch Netherlands, Chicago 1940, 14Google Scholar; Pearson, A. F. Scott, Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism, Cambridge 1925, 229Google Scholar; Scheffer, J. de Hoop, The History of the Free Churchmen called Brownists in the Dutch Republic, New York 1922, 73Google Scholar.
48 This is based on the judgement of Keith Sprunger, who has made an extensive search of Dutch archives and church records relating to puritan history in Holland. The Middelburg Adventurers’ congregation already had two pastors at the time Jacob would have been there. The fact that the Jessey material on Jacob in the Stinton MSS also failed to mention anything about a pastoral role for Jacob in Middelburg further weakens the tradition that Jacob had ministered in any official capacity in the Adventurers’ Church. See Stinton MSS, ‘A Repository’, 1–2.
47 The weak municipal organisation of the London suburbs provided radicals such as Jacob with a place to experiment with new ecclesiastical forms relatively free from the interference of civil magistrates; Pearl, Valerie, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution, London 1961, 40Google Scholar.
48 Stinton MSS, ‘A Repository’, 2.
49 Two puritans who disapproved were Richard Maunsell, who had originally supported the plan, and Arthur Hildersam, who at the time was at the Hampstead house of the Redich family hiding from the High Commissioners. Cf. Sabine Staresmore, The unlawfulness of reading in prayer, n.p. 1619, 6; Clarke, Samuel, A generall martyrologie, London 1652, 151Google Scholar.
50 Stinton MSS, ‘A Repository’, 2.
51 Tolmie, Triumph of the Saints, 12–15.
52 Henry Jacob, A confession and protestation of the faith of certain Christians in England, Amsterdam 1616, Sigs. A1–3; Staresmore, Unlawfulness of reading in prayer, 1, 20–1.
53 Canne, John, The necessity of separation, Amsterdam 1630, 207Google Scholar. For Robinson’s views see his treatise, The lawfulness of the hearing of the ministers of the Church of England, Leyden 1634, esp. pp. 23–4, where he makes a careful distinction between listening and communicating. Christopher Hill has also noted the considerable variety of practice among Separatists with respect to this issue in ‘Occasional Conformity’ in Knox, R. Buick (ed.), Reformation, Conformity and Dissent, London 1977, 108Google Scholar.
54 Jacob, Declaration and plainer opening, 6.
55 Jacob, Confession, Sigs. B3–4. See also Jacob, Attestation, 306, and Jacob, Henry, A collection of sundry matters, Middelburg 1616, Sig. B3Google Scholar.
56 Brachlow, ‘Puritan theology’, 28–9, 209–11.
57 The Writings of Henry Barrow, 1590–1591, ed. Carlson, Leland H., London 1966, 57–60Google Scholar. Jacob makes the same point in his tract, Reasons taken out of God’s Word, Middelburg 1604, 54–5Google Scholar.
58 Jacob, Defence of the churches, 12.
59 Ibid., 16, 29.
60 Ibid., 11.
61 Ibid. 18.
62 Ibid., 12–14.
63 Jacob, Reasons, 1–4.
64 Ibid., 67, 70, 51.
65 The opening sentence of Reasons was a call to reformation ‘for the safety of our souls’. See ‘To the high and mightie Prince James’, Sig. A2. This was a theme echoed throughout his other writings to the very last one, in which he maintained that ‘the only sure way for the comfort of our souls is the practice of God’s ordinances for his visible Church’. Henry Jacob, A Collection, Sig. B4.
66 Von Rohr, ‘Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus’, 119.
67 Jacob, Defence of the churches, 15.
68 Ibid., 11–12.
69 B. R. White paid close attention to the conditional nature of Separatist ecclesiology, which he said provided the theological dynamic for their act of separation. He did not, however, think they could have been indebted to the puritans for this conviction because ‘The “mutualist” interpretation was by no means characteristic of contemporary Puritan thinking’, English Separatist Tradition, 53–6. It is easy to see how one could gain this impression from reading only debates between puritans and Separatists since the puritans invariably adopted an ‘unconditional’ approach when confronting Separatism, Jacob’s controversy with Johnson being a case in point. But the fact remains, as demonstrated below, that the mutualist interpretation was also employed by puritans when they confronted champions of the established church order.
70 See McGinn, Donald J., The Admonition Controversy, New Brunswick 1949, 56Google Scholar; Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. McNeill, J. T., trans. F. L. Battles, London 1960, iv, x. 27Google Scholar. See also Milner, Benjamin, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church, Leiden 1970, 174Google Scholar. During the early decades of Elizabeth’s reign, the Anglican mainstream defended the established polity on the basis of the status of polity as adiaphora in Scripture; Woodhouse, H. F., The Doctrine of the Church in Anglican Theology, 1547–1603, London 1954, 107–23Google Scholar. It was not until later in the reign that apologists of episcopacy began formulating iure divino claims that became the Laudian polemic in the 1630s and 40s; Lamont, William, Godly Rule, Politics and Religion 1603–60, London 1969, 56–9Google Scholar.
71 Frere, W. H. and Douglas, C. E., Puritan Manifestoes, London 1954, 95Google Scholar; Chaderton, Lawrence, Afruitfull sermon, London 1584, 32Google Scholar; Walter Travers, A full and plaint declaration of ecclesiastical discipline, n.p. 1574, 14; Parte of a register, n.p. 1593, 102–3. See also Collinson, Patrick, ‘John Field and Elizabethan puritanism’, in Bindoff, S. T., Hurstfield, J. and Williams, C. H. (eds.), Elizabethan Government and Society, London 1961, 136Google Scholar. For Beza, see Maruyama, Tadataka, The Ecclesiology of Theodore Beza, Geneva 1978, esp. 209–16Google Scholar.
72 Contra Miller, Orthodoxy, 73, see Coolidge, John, The Pauline Renaissance in England, Oxford 1970, 6Google Scholar.
73 Fenner, Dudley, A counter poyson, modestly written for the time, London 1584, 4–9Google Scholar; Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 6, 74. John Coolidge overemphasised the significance of Cartwright’s admission that vestments were circumstantial. Coolidge, John S., The Pauline Renaissance in England, Oxford 1970, 6Google Scholar. Cartwright is, in fact, unrepresentative of most radicals on this point. See Pearson, A. F. Scott, Church and State: political aspects of sixteenth century puritanism, Cambridge 1928, 70Google Scholar. Field and Wilcox, for example, believed Cartwright was departing from an established puritan position with his admission. Peel, Second Parte of a Register, 138–9. Early in the seventeenth century, rumour spread that near the end of his life Cartwright had ‘hardly’ regretted having made the exception with respect to vestments; William Ames, A reply to Dr. Morton’s generall defence of three nocent ceremonies, n.p. 1622, 86.
74 See Avis, P. D. L., ‘Moses and the Magistrate: a study in the rise of protestant legalism’, this Journal, xxxvi (1975), 149–72Google Scholar.
75 Thomas Cartwright, A reply to an answere made of M. Doctor Whitgifte, n.p. 1574, 14.
76 Wendel, Fran¸ois, Calvin: The Origin and Development of his Thought, London 1976, 274–7Google Scholar.
77 See Kendall, R. T., Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, Oxford 1979Google Scholar.
78 Yule, George, ‘Continental patterns and the Reformation in England and Scotland’, Scottish Journal of Theology, xxii (1969), 309–17Google Scholar.
79 Fenner, Dudley, A briefe treatise upon the first table of the lawe, Middelburg 1587, Sig. D1Google Scholar.
80 In the Second Admonition, for example, the puritan hardliners urged parliament to reform the Church according to the biblical pattern in order that ‘we may keep him our loving God and Father, and be kept by him to be his obedient servants and sons, here to serve him and after to inherit with him that crown purchased and promised unto us’. Frere, Puritan Manifestoes, 133. Although Calvin did say that membership in a true visible Church was ordinarily ‘necessary… to our salvation’, he did not tie salvation to the practice of a specific form of discipline as the radical puritans and Separatists were to do. See Calvin, Institutes, iv, i, 4–8.
81 Jacob, Attestation, 193.
82 Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 462.
83 Watts, Dissenters, 53.
84 Jacob, Attestation, 9–10.
85 Chaderton, Fruitfull sermon, 53; Parle of a register n.p. 1593, 210.
86 Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 56; Chaderton, Fruitfull sermon, 48.
87 Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 185.
88 Frere, Puritan Manifestoes, 106–7, 126. For Cartwright’s authorship of this work see McGinn, Admonition Controversy, 52, 547.
89 Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 91; Frere, Puritan Manifestoes, 12; Udall, Demonstration, 29–30. The roots of congregational participation in electing officers among the puritans go back at least as far as the English experience at Frankfurt and Geneva during the Marian exile. See Maxwell, W. D., John Knox’s Genevan Service Book, Edinburgh 1938, 170Google Scholar.
90 Peel, Seconde Parte, i. 165; John Udall, A demonstration of that discipline which Christe hath prescribed in his worde for the government of his church, n.p. 1588, 16; Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 60; Frere, Puritan Manifestoes, 99; Chaderton, Fruitfull sermon, 63; Parte of a register, 407; Fenner, Counter-poyson, 186–7.
91 Frere, Puritan Manifestoes, 137–8; see also Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 44, where he talks of election ‘by elders’ with the congregation ‘allowing’.
92 Travers seems to grant the veto power to the congregation when he says that, after hearing the advice of the elders, the people ‘may either by some outward token or else by their silence, allow it if it be to be liked of, or gainsay it if it be not just and upright: and not only gainsay it, but if just cause of their disliking may be brought, make it altogether void and of none effect’. Later, however, he spoke with another voice when he explained that the apostles in the book of Acts reserved the right of ‘allowing or disallowing the judgments and voices of the people, which power and authority… was translated to the ecclesiastical council and the elders’. Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 54–6.
93 Ibid., 56.
94 Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 108.
95 See Frere, Puritan Manifestoes, 18, 111, 119, 124; Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 168, 179–80; Cartwright, A replye, 146; The rest of a second replie, n.p. 1577, 82–3; Fenner, Counter-poyson, 112; Udall, Demonstration, 67.
96 Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 56.
97 Cartwright, A replye, 21.
98 Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 57–8.
99 Jacob, Attestation, 301.
100 Ibid., 80.
101 Ibid., 298.
102 Jacob, Modest offer, 2; Jacob, Humble supplication, 14. See also Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 54–6.
103 Jacob, Attestation, 298; Jacob, Declaration and plainer opening, 9.
104 Jacob, Reasons, 27–8.
105 Ibid., 12.
106 Jacob, Attestation, 299.
107 Ibid., 298.
108 Ibid., 24. Morely’s advocacy of Congregationalism in Traicte de la discipline et police chrestienne, Lyon 1562, drew strong criticism from Geneva, but was perhaps not so democratically oriented as Jacob thought. From Robert M. Kingdon’s discussion of Morely’s tract, it appears that Morely qualified the’ popularity’ of his ecclesiology in much the same way that many of the English radicals did; while there are strong parallels between Morely’s ecclesiology and that of his English counterparts, there is little evidence that the Frenchman had any direct influence across the Channel. Kingdon, Robert M., Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement 1564–1572, Madison, Wisconsin 1967, 46–62Google Scholar.
109 Jacob, Attestation, 249. He did not say who these Separatists were, but he may have been thinking of Ainsworth’s party in the controversy which had recently split the Amsterdam Separatist church. Nevertheless, in the light of the way in which even the Separatists qualified the democratic side of their ecclesiastical polity, the accuracy of Jacob’s remark should be questioned. A short but judicious analysis of this issue among the Separatists may be found in Dale, R. W., History of English Congregationalism, London 1908, 107–9Google Scholar. See also B. R. White, ‘The doctrine of the Church in the particular Baptist confession of 1644’, JTS, N.S., xix (1968), 581. Hall, David, The Faithful Shepherd, New York 1972Google Scholar, presents a fine overview of the subject in Continental Reformed and English puritan thought in chaps. 1–2, but he portrays the Separatists as being more radical than they actually were. See Brachlow, ‘Puritan theology’, 154–66.
110 Ibid., 250, 24.
111 Jacob, Confession, Sig. B7.
112 Jacob, Reasons, 28.
113 Jacob, Confession, Sig. B7.
114 Jacob, Sundry matters, Sig. A8.
115 Jacob, Attestation, 301.
116 Whitley, ‘Records of the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey Church’, 207.
117 Jacob, Attestation, 27.
118 Jacob, Reasons, 37.
119 Ibid., 38–9.
120 Ibid., 70.
121 Contra, Frank Benjamin Carr, ‘The thought of Robert Parker (1564?-1614) and his influence on puritanism before 1650’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, London University 1964, 176–7.
122 Jacob, Confession, Sig. B2. The term ‘consociation’ seems to be unique to Henry Jacob and his contemporary, Robert Parker. Parker used the term in 1616, the same year that Jacob first used it in his Confession. See Bodleian Library, Oxford, Parker MS, Lib. iii, 13, 14, 23. (This is an English translation of Parker’s De politeia ecclesiastica Ckristi, Frankfurt 1616. There is no title page or indication of the translator, but from the date on the last page it appears the MS was completed in 1634.)
123 Jacob, Humble Supplication, 14; Confession, Sig. B2.
124 Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, 289.
125 Frere, Puritan Manifestoes, 107–8.
126 Peel, Seconde Parte, 166–7.
127 Frere, Puritan Manifestoes, 111.
128 A Directory of Church-Government, 1644, as reprinted in Briggs, C. A., American Presbyterianism, New York 1885Google Scholar, app. xiii; Frere, Puritan Manifestoes, 108–9.
129 Frere, Puritan Manifestoes, 116–17.
130 Fulke, William, A brief and plain declaration, 1584, in Trinterud, Leonard J. (ed.), Elizabethan Puritanism, Oxford 1971, 390Google Scholar.
131 Scott Pearson, Church and State, 102. For ties between the Elizabethan puritans and Scottish Presbyterians, see Collinson, ‘John Field’, 141, 155–6.
132 Fenner, Counter-poyson, 182.
133 E.g. S. J. Knox’s conviction that Travers intended his Ecclesiastical discipline to be ‘a full statement of the presbyterian system’. Knox, S. J., Walter Travers, paragon of Elizabethan puritanism, London 1962, 37Google Scholar.
134 Travers, Ecclesiastical discipline, 178.
135 Patrick Collinson, ‘Toward a broader understanding’, 16. See also Bolam, Gordon et al. , The English Presbyterians, Boston 1968, 32Google Scholar.
136 William Ames, Conscience with the power and cases thereof, in The workes of the reverend and faithfull minister of Christ, William Ames, London 1643, iv. 89.
137 Ibid., 70–1.
138 Baynes, Paul, The diocesans tryall, London 1621, 8Google Scholar.
139 Sheils, W. J., The Puritans in the Diocese of Peterborough, 1558–1610, Northampton 1979, 1–2Google Scholar.
140 Two Elizabethan Diaries, ed. M. M. Knappen, Chicago 1933, 98–9.
141 Philip J. Anderson, ‘Presbyterianism and the gathered churches in Old and New England 1640–1662: the struggle for church government in theory and practice’, unpublished D.Phil, thesis, Oxford University 1979, 117, 127.
