No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Church of England and her Presbyterian Curates, 1662–1672
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2023
Abstract
After their ejection from the Church of England, it is said that the English Presbyterians split into two factions. The ‘Dons’, led by Richard Baxter, pursued comprehension and reunion with the national Church, whilst the ‘Ducklings’ petitioned for an indulgence of their separation. In this article, it is argued that this twofold distinction is largely false. Rather, all English Presbyterians sought unity; their divergence in terms of practical policy stemmed from subtly different conceptions of catholicity. Thus, paradoxically, indulgence came to be seen as a pathway towards comprehension. Conventicle preaching, meanwhile, became a curious form of curacy, operating in tandem with the parish ministry.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2023
Footnotes
I would like to thank Mark Goldie, Polly Ha, David Austen and Richard Serjeantson for their comments on previous drafts of this article, as well as this Journal’s editors and anonymous reviewer.
References
1 Parliament of England and Wales, An act for the uniformity of publick prayers and administration of sacraments and other rites and ceremonies, London 1662, 6 (14 Car 2 c 4); BL, ms Harleian 5936.
2 Parliament of England and Wales, A solemne League and Covenant for reformation, London: Edward Husbands, 1643 (Wing S4446C).
3 [Crofton, Zachary], A serious review of presbyters re-ordination by bishops, London: Ralph Smith, 1661 (2nd edn 1994) (Wing C7003), 23Google Scholar.
4 Claydon, Tony, ‘The Church of England and the Churches of Europe’, in Gregory, Jeremy (ed.), The Oxford history of Anglicanism: establishment and empire, 1662–1829, Oxford 2017, 318Google Scholar. See also Hampton, Stephen, Anti-Arminians: the Anglican Reformed tradition from Charles II to George I, Oxford 2008Google Scholar. For a brilliant recent study on the topic of Reformed orthodoxy in the later Stuart Church of England see Griesel, Jake, Retaining the old episcopal divinity: John Edwards of Cambridge and Reformed orthodoxy in the later Stuart Church, Oxford 2022Google Scholar.
5 Goldie, Mark, Roger Morrice and the Puritan Whigs, Woodbridge 2016, 229Google Scholar.
6 Original records of early Nonconformity under persecution and indulgence, ed. G. Lyond Turner, London 1914, iii. 201; Thomas, Roger, ‘Comprehension and indulgence’, in Nuttall, Geoffrey F. and Chadwick, Owen (eds), From uniformity to unity, 1662–1962, London 1962, 207–10, 236–8Google Scholar; Thomas, Roger, ‘Parties in Nonconformity’, in Bolam, C. G., Goring, J., Short, H. L. and Thomas, Roger (eds), The English Presbyterians: from Elizabethan Puritanism to modern Unitarianism, London 1968, 95–105Google Scholar.
7 Thomas, ‘Parties in Nonconformity’, 95, 99.
8 Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1671–1672 (hereinafter cited as CSPD), London 1860, 28–9.
9 It is also implied that Lazarus Seaman is a Don, whilst James Ennis [Innes] is also mentioned by Williamson in connection with the Ducklings. Ennis introduced Annesley and his Ducklings when they addressed the king in 1672, whilst Seaman and William Jenkyn accompanied the so-called Dons in a separate address: ibid. 28–9.
10 Bolam, Goring, Short and Thomas, The English Presbyterians.
11 CSPD, 1671–1672, 496; C. G. Bolam and Jeremy Goring, ‘The cataclysm’, in Bolam, Goring, Short and Thomas, The English Presbyterians, 85–7.
12 Bolam and Goring, ‘The cataclysm’, 86; Thomas, ‘Comprehension and indulgence’, 208–10.
13 Thomas, ‘Parties in Nonconformity’, 95; Roger Thomas, ‘Presbyterians in transition’, in Bolam, Goring, Short and Thomas, The English Presbyterians, 119–20.
14 See Winship, Michael P., ‘Defining Puritanism in Restoration England: Richard Baxter and others respond to “A friendly debate”’, HJ liv (2011), 712–15Google Scholar; Ann Hughes, ‘Print and pastoral identity’, in Michael Davies, Anne Dunan-Page and Joel Halcomb (eds), Church life: pastors, congregations, and the experience of dissent in seventeenth-century England, Oxford 2019, 169; and John Spurr, English Puritanism, 1603–1689, New York 1998, 139.
15 Even here, however, the key question is not whether their practices were independent from the national Church post-1662, for almost by definition any structures they set up for themselves would be such, but how they conceived of such activity: George Southcombe, ‘Presbyterians in the Restoration’, in John Coffey (ed.), The Oxford history of the Protestant dissenting traditions, I: The post-Reformation era, c.1559–1689, Oxford 2020, 77–8.
16 Southcombe relies exclusively upon Beddard's article for his treatment of Alsop, though he does take a more cautious approach: ‘Presbyterians in the Restoration’, 84; R. A. Beddard, ‘Vincent Alsop and the emancipation of Restoration dissent’, this Journal xxiv (1973), 161–84. For the multifarious problems with Beddard's view see S. J. Tunnicliffe, ‘The development of the doctrine of the Church and religious toleration among English Presbyterians, 1643–1705’, unpublished PhD diss. Cambridge 2023, ch. v.
17 Mark Goldie notes that this distinction is ‘unduly teleological’, though he largely persists with the notion that ‘a growing gap’ existed between the two wings of the party throughout the Restoration era. For the use of these terms see Original records of early Nonconformity, iii. 201; Goldie, Roger Morrice and the Puritan Whigs, 237; John Coffey, ‘Church and State, 1550-1750: the emergence of dissent’, in Robert Pope (ed.), T&T Clark companion to Nonconformity, London 2013, 63; and Gary S. De Krey, London and the Restoration, 1659–1683, Cambridge 2005, 120–1.
18 The entry which first mentions the dispute on 13 December 1671 is the only recorded instance of Williamson's celebrated terminology, whilst the final entry touching the matter comes later that same month, on 27 December, when he reports that ‘these two parties resolve prudently, whatever differences are amongst them, not to let the world see it’: CSPD, 1671–1672, 28–9, 45.
19 Goldie, Roger Morrice and the Puritan Whigs, p. xxii.
20 Here I am indebted to Brent Sirota, who termed the Societies for the Reformation of Manners, founded in the 1690s, ‘an ersatz form of Protestant reconciliation’. I essentially expand this idea here to the whole of the Restoration era: Brent S. Sirota, The Christian monitors: the Church of England and the age of benevolence, 1680–1730, New Haven 2014, 94.
21 A recent PhD dissertation on Manton calls him the foremost ‘ecclesiastical statesman among the Presbyterians’ throughout the Restoration era until his death in 1677: Adam Richardson, ‘Thomas Manton and the Presbyterians in Interregnum and Restoration England’, unpubl. PhD diss. Leicester 2014, 163.
22 Watson's date of birth remains unknown, but his matriculation at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, in 1635 suggests that he could hardly have been born later than 1620: Barry Till, ‘Watson, Thomas (1620?-1686)’, ODNB, <https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/28867>, accessed 18 February 2020.
23 CSPD, 1671–1672, 29; Thomas, ‘Comprehension and indulgence’, 208; Bolam and Goring, ‘The cataclysm’, 87; Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter and the formation of Nonconformity, Farnham 2016, 269; Yannick Deschamps, ‘Daniel Defoe's contribution to the dispute over occasional conformity: an insight into dissent and “moderation” in the early eighteenth century’, American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies xlvi (2013), 354.
24 Thomas, ‘Comprehension and indulgence’, 208.
25 Thomas Vincent was born in 1634 and was by far the youngest of those mentioned by Williamson. Meanwhile, the Westminster divine Lazarus Seaman was likely born at some point between 1599 and 1607. Seaman is not explicitly named as a Don, but Williamson's description of him dates from the same month and appears to place him in that company. He gave thanks to Charles ii alongside Manton, Bates and Jenkyn.
26 Original records of early nonconformity, iii. 203.
27 Bates, Manton and Jacombe were all Doctors of Divinity. That such a simple solution could have been obscured for so long I would put down primarily to the perfunctory addition of Baxter, who was not university-educated, to this list of Dons. Here, as everywhere, there are exceptions and complications: Annesley was in fact a doctor among the Ducklings, though of law rather than divinity: Katherine Clark, Daniel Defoe: the whole frame of nature, time and providence, London 2007, 39–40.
28 Daniel Williams, The excellency of a publick spirit… at the funeral of that late reverend divine Dr. Samuel Annesley, 2nd edn, London: John Dunton, 1697 (Wing W2648), 138.
29 Watson's Divine cordial (1663) was likely first presented as a series of short sermons: Till, ‘Watson, Thomas’; Richard L. Greaves, Enemies under his feet: radicals and nonconformists in Britain, 1664–1677, Stanford, Ca 1990, 124.
30 Richard Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae: or, Mr. Richard Baxter's narrative of the most memorable passages of his life and times (London 1696, iii. 95), ed. N. H. Keeble and others, ii, Oxford 2020, 449–50.
31 Stephen Wright, ‘Bates, William (1625–1699)’, ODNB, <https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/1682>, accessed 18 February 2020.
32 Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae, ii. 449–50.
33 Hughes, ‘Print and pastoral identity’, 169; This report of Manton's preaching is cited in J. T. Cliffe, The Puritan gentry besieged, 1650–1700, London 1993, 110.
34 Richard Baxter, Calendar of the correspondence of Richard Baxter, ed. N. H. Keeble and Geoffrey F. Nuttall, Oxford 1991, 63–4.
35 Thomas, ‘Comprehension and indulgence’, 202.
36 Southcombe, ‘Presbyterians in the Restoration’, 78.
37 Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696, iii. 172, 176), ii. 522–3, 532.
38 [Cornelius Burges], A vindication of the ministers of the Gospel in, and about London, from the unjust aspersions cast upon their former actings for the parliament, London: Th. Underhill, 1648 (Wing B5690), 7.
39 Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696, ii.124), ii. 99.
40 Greaves, Enemies under his feet, 128.
41 As for Jackson, there are reports ‘that he was living at Whitefriars and preaching at conventicles between 1663 and 1665’: Tai Liu, ‘Jackson, Arthur (1593–1666)’, ODNB, <https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/14517>, accessed 3 February 2020; Elliot Vernon, ‘Jenkyn, William (bap. 1613, d. 1685)’, ODNB, < https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/14743>, accessed 3 February 2020; [Burges], A vindication, 7.
42 Vernon, ‘William Jenkyn’.
43 Rutherford implied that suspension from communion required the consent of the Church. Seaman's very Presbyterian objection was simply that ‘the formall consent of the church is in the call of a minister’. For Seaman's ecclesiology see Hunter Powell, The crisis of British Protestantism: church power in the Puritan Revolution, 1638–44, Manchester 2015, 73–4, 101–3, 191, 219, and The minutes and papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643–1652, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn, iii, Oxford 2012, 424.
44 William Jenkyn, Exodus: or, The decease of holy men and ministers consider'd … by occasion of the much lamented death of that learned and reverend minister of Christ, Dr. Lazarus Seaman, London: Edward Brewster and William Cooper, 1675 (Wing J638), 35.
45 Seemingly Vincent Alsop has been preferred to Watson as one of this group's leaders: Thomas, ‘Parties in nonconformity’, 98; Mark Goldie, ‘Toleration and the godly prince in Restoration England’, in John Morrow and Jonathan Scott (eds), Liberty, authority, formality: political ideas and culture, 1600–1900, Exeter 2008, 62; De Krey, London and the Restoration, 120; Beddard, ‘Vincent Alsop'.
46 Alongside the names of Watson, Jackson and Jenkyn, this document also boasts Thomas Manton's subscription: [Burges], A vindication, 7–11.
47 Thomas Watson, Gods anatomy upon mans heart: or, A sermon preached by order of the honorable House of Commons, London: Ralph Smith, 1649 (Wing W1125), 16, 12–13.
48 Hughes, ‘Print and pastoral identity’, 1, 64; Zachary Crofton, Reformation not separation: or, Mr. Crofton's plea for communion with the Church, London: Ralph Smith, 1662 (Wing C7000); R. S., Jerubbaal justified: or, A plain rebuke of the high (pretended humble) remonstrance and plea against Mr. Crofton, London 1663 (Wing S130).
49 [Crofton], A serious review of presbyters re-ordination, 22–3.
50 Richard Alleine, Cheirothesia tou presbyteriou, London: J. S., 1661 (Wing A984), 2.
51 [Crofton], A serious review of presbyters re-ordination, 8.
52 John Humfrey, The question of re-ordination, London: Thomas Williams, 1661(Wing H3704), 2.
53 Ibid. 21–2.
54 Ibid. 19–20.
55 Ibid. 18–20.
56 Stephen Wright, ‘Alleine, Richard (1610/11–1681)’, ODNB, < https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/367>, accessed 12 February 2020.
57 Alleine, Cheirothesia tou presbyteriou, 65, 69.
58 John Humfrey, A defence of the proposition, London 1668 (Wing H3676), 80–2.
59 Idem, A second discourse about re-ordination, London: Tho. Williams and Tho. Johnson, 1662 (Wing H3709), 71, 38, 96.
60 Idem, The question of re-ordination, 5.
61 [Crofton], A serious review, 23.
62 Humfrey, A second discourse, 97.
63 [Crofton], A serious review, 15.
64 [John Humfrey], A proposition for the safety & happiness of the king and kingdom, both in Church and State, London 1667 (Wing H77D), 5–6.
65 Ibid. 54.
66 John Corbet, A discourse of the religion of England asserting, that reformed Christianity detled in its due latitude, is the stability and advancement of this kingdom, London 1667 (Wing C6252), 28.
67 Ibid. 24, 43.
68 Douglas R. Lacey, Dissent and parliamentary politics in England, 1661–1689: a study in the perpetuation and tempering of parliamentarianism, Rawhay, NJ 1969, 56.
69 Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696, iii. 143), ii. 488.
70 Baxter's other correspondents were Francis Tallents, Matthew Poole and Thomas Jacombe: ibid. (1696, iii. 157), ii. 505.
71 Thomas Tomkins, The inconveniencies of toleration: or, An answer to a late book intituled, A proposition made to the king and parliament for the safety and happiness of the king and kingdom, London: W. Garret, 1667 (Wing T1835A), 26–7.
72 Humfrey, A defence of the proposition, 6.
73 Idem, A proposition, 14; A defence of the proposition, 20.
74 Patrick, Simon, A friendly debate betwixt two neighbours, the one a conformist, the other a non-conformist, London 1668 (Wing P798)Google Scholar.
75 Parker, Samuel, A discourse of ecclesiastical politie, London: John Martyn, 1670 (Wing P459)Google Scholar.
76 Baxter, Calendar of correspondence, 68–9.
77 Humfrey, The question of re-ordination, 19–20; The authority of magistrate about religion discussed in a rebuke to the preacher of a late book of Bishop Bramhalls, London: J. H., 1672 (Wing H3669), 27.
78 Idem, The authority of magistrate, 27.
79 Philaletheseirenes, Indulgence not to be refused: comprehension humbly desired: the Churche's peace earnestly endeavoured, London 1672 (Wing I154), 11.
80 Humfrey, The authority of magistrate, 24; The question of re-ordination, 19–20.
81 [Baxter, Richard], Sacrilegious desertion of the holy ministery rebuked, London 1672 (Wing B1380)Google Scholar.
82 Ibid. 11.
83 Goldie, Roger Morrice and the Puritan Whigs, 141.
84 Baxter, Calendar of correspondence, 188.
85 [Idem], Sacrilegious desertion, 11–12, 35, 91.
86 Ibid. 14.
87 Ernst Troeltsch, The social teaching of the Christian Churches, ii, Woking 1931, 460–7. For the discussion of Troeltsch in this context, I am indebted to the work of Mark Goldie: Roger Morrice and the Puritan Whigs, 227.
88 Troeltsch, Social teaching, ii. 460–7.
89 Ibid. ii. 670–82, 637.
90 Here the work of Tony Claydon is instructive: Europe and the making of England, 1660–1760, Cambridge 2007.
91 Goldie, Roger Morrice and the Puritan Whigs, 227.