# New England Congregationalists



## Scott (Jan 18, 2005)

Does anyone have any detail (also interested in resources, especially online) on how members of English or other established churches viewed New England Congregationalists? I am especially interested in whether they were viewed as true churches. I am also interested in whether members of congregational churches would have been allowed communion the in the established churches of Europe.

Here is an excerpt from a statement by Rutherford about New England Congregationalists in a PCA position paper.




> To use terminology developed later, the church is visible both as an organism and as an institution. As stated by Berkhof:
> 
> 
> The Church as an organism is the coetus fidelium, the communion of believers, who are united in the bond of the Spirit, while the church as an institution is the mater fidelium, the mother of believers, a Heilsanstalt, a means of salvation, an agency for the conversion of sinners and the perfecting of saints.
> ...



Scott


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 18, 2005)

I can point you to some resources. How's this for a title?

RUTHERFORD, SAMUEL, A Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church-Discipline Penned by Mr. Richard Hooker, Late Pastor of the Church at Hartford upon Connecticut in New England. Wherein The Way of the Churches in N. England is now re-examined; Arguments in favour thereof winnowed; The Principles of that Way discussed; and the Reasons of most seeming strength and nerves removed (1658)

Check out this link for this and other such resources: http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/presbyterian-independents.htm


----------



## Scott (Jan 18, 2005)

Andrew - you da' man! That looks right on point, if a bit overkill. I also hate reading the photocopies of the original works. I may see if it is available somewhere in a normal print version.


----------



## Scott (Jan 18, 2005)

BTW, do you know if people like Rutherford viewed these congregations as true churches, just in error on government?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> BTW, do you know if people like Rutherford viewed these congregations as true churches, just in error on government?



Scott,

I'm looking into this matter. It may take a little time to respond fully. Preliminarily, I think there is a sense in which he argued that Independents/Congregationalists self-excommunicate themselves from the rest of the body of Christ. Yet, I don't think he would go so far as to declare them to be synagogues of Satan or anything like that. In the Westminster Assembly, there were Independents and there were Presbyterians. If he felt like Independents/Congregationalists were not part of the true Church, I don't think he would have participated. But that's just my initial response. I'll see what I find from his own words.


----------



## AdamM (Jan 20, 2005)

Thomas Hooker and John Cotton were two of the most well respected Puritans of their era on both sides of the Atlantic. The quotes I'll look up when I get the chance from other Purtians (Presbyterians) will dispell any notion that they considered men like Hooker has having excommunicated themselves from the church.



> Thomas Hooker was a leader in the area of government as well. In May of 1638 he was asked to address the General Court of Connecticut which apparently had been given the responsibility of drafting a constitution. It was there he preached his famous sermon on Deuteronomy 1:13: Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. "In this sermon he laid down three doctrines. Doctrine I. That the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance. Doctrine II. That the privilege of election which belongs unto the people must not be exercised according to their humour, but according to the blessed will of God. Doctrine III. That they who have the power to appoint officers and magistrates, it is in their power also to set the bounds of the power and the place unto which they call them."10 In January 1639 the "Fundamental Orders" were adopted, serving as the constitution of Connecticut. Thomas Hooker's leadership and influence in the final document has been recognized by historians.
> Hooker's reputation remained strong even in England
> and in the summer of 1642 letters arrived at Boston invit-ing Thomas Hooker, John Davenport, and John Cotton to represent New England at the Westminster Assembly of Divines. Hooker declined to attend although he apparently tried to have an influence on the assembly by the publication of two books and a catechism in London in 1645. The books were A Brief Exposition of the Lord's Prayer and Heaven's Treasury Opened in a Faithful Exposition of the Lord's Prayer. The catechism was entitled An Exposition of the Principles of Religion.
> Hooker was a man given to much prayer. Cotton Mather reports, "He would say, 'That prayer was the principal part of a minister's work; 'twas by this, that he was to carry on the rest.' Accordingly, he still devoted one day in a month to private prayer, with fasting, before the Lord, besides the publick fasts, which often occurred unto him. He would say, 'That such extraordinary favours, as the life of religion, and the power of godliness, must be preserved by the frequent use of such extraordinary means as prayer with fasting; and that if professors grow negligent of these means, iniquity will abound, and the love of many wax cold.'"11
> ...






[Edited on 20-1-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Scott (Jan 20, 2005)

Thanks Adam and Andrew. I too think it is significant that these men were invited to the Assembly.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 20, 2005)

There were also prominent New England divines well known and received by old England. John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, john Davenort, and Sir henry Vane were part of the Westminster Assembly. Increase Mather was also well known and recieved, and was a particular friend of Richard Baxter. And of course, Edwards was also becoming popular both in England and Scotland towards the end of his life.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 20, 2005)

A point of clarification to my earlier post: The title of Rutherford's treatise references Richard Hooker, but I _believe_ Thomas Hooker is the person he intended to reference. Richard Hooker was the notable Anglican who defended Anglican worship and polity.


----------



## AdamM (Jan 20, 2005)

I think part of the difficulty comes in trying to define who exactly is a "New England Puritan." Hooker & Cotton are two good examples. Both trained in England and ministered on both sides of the Atlantic, which wasn't unusual in that era. Then after the 1662 Act of Uniformity the situation gets even more complex with 2000 Puritans being tossed out of of their pulpits and made "independents" in a sense. Additionally, the minsiterial associations in New England fucntioned *sort* of like Presbyteries back then.

For what it's worth, here is an excert from an artcile written by Iain Murray on Thomas Hooker that I found helpful too: 



> June 1631 found Hooker in the Netherlands, his wife and children meanwhile being cared for, it seems, on the Earl of Warwick's estate at Great Waltham. Two things marked Hooker's stay in the Netherlands, first his harmonious assistantship to the exiled Scots minister, John Forbes, who ministered to English-speaking merchants in the Prinsenhof Church at Delft, and, second, his meeting and friendship with the great William Ames, whom he had last seen in Cambridge in 1610. If Ames remembered the young Fellow of Emmanuel he certainly found him now to be a different man. * Cotton Mather records Ames' assertion that 'though he had been acquainted with many scholars of divers nations, yet he never met with Mr Hooker's equal, either for preaching or for disputing'. These were memorable words in a generation of men who were not given to praising one another.*
> 
> In March, 1633, or thereabouts, Hooker left Delft for Rotterdam and appears to have made a short visit to England to ascertain both for himself and Forbes the prospect in New England. It may well have been shortly before that visit that he wrote to John Cotton (in hiding in England), advising him that he saw no cause to encourage fellow countrymen to settle in the Netherlands and going on to speak of his own perplexity in knowing the guidance of God:
> 
> ...




[Edited on 20-1-2005 by AdamM]


----------

