James Owen and the Defense of Moderate Nonconformity [1 ed.] 9783666560484, 9783525560488

Citation preview

Jason Matossian

James Owen and the Defense of Moderate Nonconformity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Reformed Historical Theology Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Benyamin F. Intan, Elsie Anne McKee, Richard A. Muller, and Risto Saarinen

Volume 71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Jason Matossian

James Owen and the Defense of Moderate Nonconformity

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de.

© 2022 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Theaterstraße 13, 37073 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the Brill-Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag Antike and V&R unipress.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: le-tex publishing services, Leipzig Cover design: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-1137 ISBN 978-3-666-56048-4

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments.................................................................................

7

1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 1.1 Historiography of the English Church in the Long-Eighteenth Century ............................................................ 1.1.1 A More Balanced View of the Church.................................... 1.1.2 The Church in the Restoration Era ........................................ 1.1.3 The Church under Toleration ............................................... 1.1.4 Later Controversies............................................................. 1.2 Eighteenth-Century English Ecclesiologies ..................................... 1.3 Moderation and Occasional Conformity ........................................ 1.3.1 Moderation........................................................................ 1.3.2 Occasional Conformity ....................................................... 1.4 Outline ......................................................................................

9 10 10 11 12 14 15 20 20 21 25

2. Context and Background of James Owen ........................................... 2.1 The Unsettling Restoration Settlement ........................................... 2.1.1 Division and Confusion ...................................................... 2.1.2 Anglicanism Revived .......................................................... 2.1.3 Leading up to the “Glorious” Revolution................................ 2.1.4 The Era of Toleration........................................................... 2.2 The Church in Wales ................................................................... 2.3 Moderation—the Legacy of Richard Baxter .................................... 2.4 Some Important Biographical Considerations.................................

27 27 27 29 32 36 38 42 46

3. A Circle of Moderate Friends............................................................. 3.1 A Variety of Close Connections .................................................... 3.2 Elements of Moderation............................................................... 3.2.1 Charity.............................................................................. 3.2.2 Unity in Doctrine ............................................................... 3.2.3 Separation without Schism .................................................. 3.2.4 Lordship of Christ over Conscience ......................................

49 51 54 55 57 63 69

6

Table of Contents

4. James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority ......................................................................... 4.1 Early Influences .......................................................................... 4.2 Owen’s Sources of Authority ......................................................... 4.2.1 Scripture ........................................................................... 4.2.2 Providence......................................................................... 4.2.3 History..............................................................................

71 72 75 75 78 79

5. Ordination Controversy ..................................................................... 5.1 The Evolution of the Defense of Episcopacy .................................... 5.2 The Controversialists ................................................................... 5.3 The Controversy: 1694–1699 ........................................................ 5.4 Major Themes of the Controversy ................................................. 5.4.1 Disparate Views of Ministry ................................................. 5.4.2 Sources of Authority ........................................................... 5.4.3 Hermeneutical Distinctives ..................................................

91 93 94 96 98 99 105 115

6. The Conflict over Occasional Conformity ............................................ 6.1 An Overview of the Controversy ................................................... 6.2 Related Issues: Comprehension and Toleration ............................... 6.3 Owen’s Strategy........................................................................... 6.4 Main lines of Argumentation ........................................................ 6.5 The Responses to Owen ............................................................... 6.6 Owen’s Ecclesiological Convictions ...............................................

121 124 127 132 134 138 146

7. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 151 Bibliography ......................................................................................... 155 Index of Subjects .................................................................................. 161 Index of Persons ................................................................................... 165

Acknowledgments

There is no doubt that there are more people to thank for their support during my research and writing than I could possibly acknowledge. I have had dear friends encouraging me; a church family praying for me; colleagues and professors (past and present) challenging me. I am grateful for each person and their support in so many different ways. At the same time, I can acknowledge those who have had a particularly unique impact on the publication of this book. My brother Rev. Dr. Michael Matossian has always been one who has encouraged and challenged me. His guidance, conversations, and example have left an indelible mark on me in more ways than one. Of course, I cannot thank Dr. James Bradley sufficiently for his role in this monograph. Dr. Bradley has been a source of inspiration, encouragement, challenge, and, more often than he knows, blessing. His care for the field of church history and heart for the church have been used by the Lord to shape me in myriad ways. I am deeply grateful for all of his input and suggestions, corrections and connections throughout the writing and editing process. I owe great thanks to Dr. Herman Selderhuis, editor of this series, for his always gracious and encouraging communication, his helpful guidance, and his reception of this book. I am indebted to Dr. Michael Haykin whose kindness toward me and interest in my work connected me to Dr. Selderhuis, a connection I deeply appreciate. Dr. Izaak de Hulster from Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht has been a joy to work with and his support has been instrumental in finally bringing this project to completion. Of course, my wife Nora, son Ara, and daughter Kaira, all endured the process of writing with me. I am forever grateful for their love and support, willingness to sacrifice time with me so that I can get work done, and their very few complaints along the way. I love you more than you can know. And finally, above all, all praise and honor belong to the Triune God, whose I am and whom I serve; for His glory, by His grace.

1.

Introduction

In the Ford Lectures of 1958, historian Norman Sykes noted, “[w]ith the failure of Comprehension [...] and the consequent coalescence of the numerous and important body of Presbyterians with the other Protestant dissenters outside the established church, the Toleration Act assumed a new and growing significance.”1 He went on to add that two important issues that developed within this new context of Toleration were the growth and prominence of the Dissenting academies and the controversy over occasional conformity.2 The academies represented the Dissenters’ hope for the future, as their students were not allowed to study at England’s universities and education was necessary for ministerial preparation and ordination. Closely tied to the defense of such academies, of course, was the defense of Nonconformist ordination, itself essential for ecclesiastical survival and neither education nor ordination was endorsed by the ruling majority. Certainly then, ecclesiology was the theological battleground of the era, both with regard to the ministry and with respect to the practice of occasional conformity. The period was marked by controversy, conflict, and change—an era in which denominational identities, particularly those of the Dissenters, were reformulated for a new context. Some believed that toleration was meant to be a temporary measure to bring peace and stability; others saw it as a new way of life. Clergy of all denominations were significant participants in both church and political life. James Owen (1654–1706), a Welsh Presbyterian, was heavily involved in several key post-Toleration ecclesiological controversies, including published debates on both ordination and occasional conformity. Owen, who was reared in an Anglican household, also served as a tutor at two Dissenting academies. He was a close friend and associate with other better-known moderate Dissenters of his age, including Edmund Calamy and Matthew Henry. Although he was actively engaged in important aspects of English intellectual life in the late-seventeenth century, with the exception of a single hagiographic biography written by his own brother, very little has been published regarding Owen’s life and work. This present study intends to begin to fill this lacuna and will examine Owen’s intellectual contribution to a period of great significance within the history of English and Welsh Dissent.3 1 Norman Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), p. 91. 2 Sykes, From Sheldon, p. 92. 3 Jonathan H. Westaway, “Owen, James (1654–1706),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019; Mark Burden, A Biographical Dictionary of Tutors at the Dissenters’ Private Academies, 1660–1729 (London: Dr Williams’s Centre for Dissenting Studies, 2013), pp. 407–416.

10

Introduction

1.1

Historiography of the English Church in the Long-Eighteenth Century

1.1.1 A More Balanced View of the Church Previous scholarship has addressed the conflicts and many of the debates between the established Church and nonconformity that occurred in what has come to be known as the long-eighteenth century in England, extending from 1688 through 1832. Since the critical and paradigm-shifting publication of Norman Sykes’ Church and State in England in the XVIIIth Century in 1934, scholars have been working to correct the Victorian era’s prejudiced view that denounced the eighteenth-century Anglican Church as weak and secularized.4 Perhaps no historian has been more impactful in this regard than J.C.D. Clark, whose English Society 1688–1832, published in 1985, and its revision, English Society, 1660–1832, published in 2000, have been influential in allowing eighteenth-century England to stand on its own merits, rather than play foil to either the seventeenth or nineteenth centuries.5 Much of the scholarship has focused on the social and political struggles and their implications.6 A number of dissertations and monographs have been written on particular conflicts themselves.7 Some have been written to address specific movements within the established Church;8 others have been of a more biographical nature, studying the life and influence of some eminent thinkers of the age.9 Recent journal articles have examined aspects of clerical life, training, and work, from a more denominational

4 Norman Sykes, Church and State in England in the XVIIIth Century (New York: Octagon Books, 1975). See also, John Walsh and Stephen Taylor, “Introduction: the Church and Anglicanism in the ‘long’ eighteenth century,” in The Church of England, c. 1689–c. 1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism, ed. John Walsh, Colin Haydon, and Stephen Taylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 1–64. 5 J.C.D. Clark, English Society 1688–1832: Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice during the Ancien Regime (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985); English Society, 1660–1832: Religion, Ideology and Politics During the Ancien Regime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 6 James E. Bradley, Religion, Revolution, and English Radicalism: Nonconformity in Eighteenth-Century Politics and Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Robert D. Cornwall and William Gibson, eds., Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–1832: Essays in Honour of James E. Bradley (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2010). 7 Andrew Starkie, The Church of England and the Bangorian Controversy, 1716–1721 (Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2007). 8 Rebecca Louise Warner, “Early Eighteenth Century Low Churchmanship: The Glorious Revolution to the Bangorian Controversy” (Ph.D. diss., University of Reading, 1999). 9 Susan Rutherford, “Reformation Principles: The Religious and Political Ideas of Benjamin Hoadly (1676–1761)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Northumbria at Newcastle, 2000); William Gibson, Enlightenment Prelate: Benjamin Hoadly, 1676–1761 (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2004); Bracy V. Hill II, “The Language of Dissent: The Defense of Eighteenth-Century English Dissent in the Works and Sermons of James Peirce” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2010).

Historiography of the English Church in the Long-Eighteenth Century

perspective.10 Clearly, eighteenth-century England has become fertile ground for historical scholarship. 1.1.2 The Church in the Restoration Era The period of the Restoration, from 1660 until approximately 1688, the time of the Glorious Revolution, was marked by the ascension of Charles II to the throne and the restored Stuart monarchy. In this consequential stage in English history, the political and ecclesiastical movements have been examined from a variety of perspectives. Douglas R. Lacey documented the complex inner workings of English Parliament during this critical period with a particular focus on the Dissenters and their supporters. Along with his analysis of the political ebb and flow, Lacey carefully presents the dynamic intra-dissenting relationships, particularly between Presbyterians and Congregationalists. His meticulous study from 1969 remains an authority on the subject.11 John Spurr’s The Restoration Church of England, 1646–1689, gives an Anglican account of the state of the Church before and throughout the Restoration period. He describes the context in which the struggle for comprehension occurred and many of the reasons why it failed. Spurr’s work expounds the progress and development of Anglican ecclesiology during this period and aptly distinguishes Anglicanism from continental Reformed churches, illuminating aspects of the Anglican-Dissent divide. Another notable work from an Anglican perspective is Jeremy Gregory’s Restoration, Reformation, and Reform, 1660–1828, which uses the Diocese of Canterbury as its focal point and analyzes the Church’s leadership, its administration, and its relationship with both Protestant and Roman Catholic nonconformity of the time. Both of these works offer a balanced approach which redress issues with pre-Sykes scholarship and its cynical view of the eighteenth-century established Church. The Anglican Church of this period remained a Protestant institution and defender of biblical orthodoxy. The Roman Catholic aspect of the Restoration era and a corrective to the anti-Roman

10 Jeremy Gregory, “Standards for Admission to the Ministry of the Church of England in the Eighteenth Century,” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 83, no. 1 (2003): pp. 283–295; W.M. Jacob, “Supervising the pastors: Supervision and Discipline of the Clergy in Norfolk in the Eighteenth Century,” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 83 , no. 1 (2003): pp. 296–308. 11 Douglas R. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England, 1661–1689 (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1969).

11

12

Introduction

Catholic perspective of whiggish histories is well-articulated by John Miller’s Popery and Politics in England 1660–1688.12 After the Act of Uniformity of 1662, those who refused to conform to the Anglican Church were forced into the precarious situation of assuming an anti-establishment identity. For most Dissenters, submission to the requirements of the Act was unconscionable and life outside of the establishment unclear. The prescriptions of the Act of Uniformity, particularly that of episcopal ordination, struck at the heart of Dissenting identity and led to the ejection of two-thousand nonconforming clergy. This new context led to the development of closer ties between the varying Dissenting denominations, especially between Presbyterians and Congregationalists, and these developments have been written about in some detail in a number of accounts of this era.13 Yet throughout the period, moderate Presbyterians maintained a desire to reunite with a broader and more comprehensive established Church. James Owen himself, although born into an Anglican home, became a Dissenter by choice during the Restoration period, yet consistently resisted complete separation from the national Church. This was true for many, particularly those who might be considered Baxterian, following the ecclesiological convictions of the eminent Puritan, Richard Baxter, who is discussed below in chapter 2. During the Restoration era, Baxter was an advocate of occasional conformity and the practice was somewhat common, although its use to qualify for office appears to have been rare.14 1.1.3 The Church under Toleration With the arrival of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Act of Toleration of 1689 there was a sudden shift in church and society. According to John Walsh and Stephen Taylor, “This was a pastoral as well as a political problem.”15 The relationship between denominations, along with the relationship between pastor and parish, was forced to change. Walsh and Taylor describe the Anglican situation

12 John Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646–1689 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991); Jeremy Gregory, Restoration, Reformation, and Reform, 1660–1828: Archbishops of Canterbury and their diocese (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000); John Miller, Popery and Politics in England 1660–1688 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973). 13 E.g., R.W. Dale, History of English Congregationalism, ed. A.W.W. Dale, 2nd ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907), pp. 407ff; A.H. Drysdale, History of Presbyterians in England: Their Rise, Decline, and Revival (London: Publications Committee of the Presbyterian Church of England, 1889), pp. 381ff. 14 John Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy: Ideology and Party Politics, 1697–1711,” The Journal of British Studies 17, no 1 (Autumn, 1977), p. 41. Flaningam suggests that the reason occasional conformity was not used often by Dissenters during the Restoration era to qualify for office was the level of persecution experienced from the established Church. 15 Walsh and Taylor, “Introduction,” p. 16.

Historiography of the English Church in the Long-Eighteenth Century

concisely: “Unable to coerce, they now had to persuade. For many the experience was traumatic.”16 For nonconformity, the opportunity had now come to form identity that went beyond opposition to the establishment, as Sykes alluded to. For moderate Dissenters, however, Toleration simply meant that their hopes for a more comprehensive and unifying established Church were fading. The concern for unity would have to take on a different shape. Significant scholarly attention has been offered the debates and conflicts regarding comprehension versus toleration, and this monograph will build upon these studies.17 The closely related issue, occasional conformity, is examined through Owen’s published works and responses in the earliest years of the eighteenth century, which comprise the contents of chapter 6 of this present work. The Toleration period has received its due of scholarly attention. Gordon Rupp’s Religion in England 1688–1791 provides an overview of the cast of characters starting with this transitional period and continuing through much of the long-eighteenth century. In 1988, the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London held a Colloquium on the “Tory perception of the Revolution” in an effort to rectify biases accepted by the Whig interpretation, resulting in By Force or By Default? The Revolution of 1688–1689.18 The period of Toleration was examined from numerous angles, including reexaminations of James II’s sincerity in offering his indulgence to Nonconformists, Dissent’s response, and the role of both Tories and Whigs in London at the time of the Revolution. Further, with the publication of Roger Morrice’s Entring Book, which is what Morrice himself called his own journaling of the occurrences of the years 1677 to 1691, a new level of understanding has been attained.19 Again, scholars are finding a more vibrant Church and a more prominent role for religion—although more complicated—than previously presumed. This post-Sykes perspective explains the desire of moderate Dissenters like Owen to promote versions of unity and repudiate complete separation. Under the pre-Sykes paradigm, the position of moderates who wished to maintain even partial communion with Anglicans seemed dubious. However, the new scholarly environment has allowed a greater appreciation and understanding of such Nonconformist moderation.

16 Walsh and Taylor, “Introduction,” p. 16. See also, G.V. Bennett, The Tory Crisis in Church and State 1688–1730 (Oxford, 1975), as mentioned by Walsh and Taylor. 17 G.V. Bennet, “Conflict in the Church,” in Britain after the Glorious Revolution 1689–1714, ed. Geoffrey Holmes (London: Macmillan, 1969); Douglas R. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics; John Spurr, “The Church of England, Comprehension and the Toleration Act of 1689,” The English Historical Review, vol. 104, no. 413 (Oct., 1989), pp. 927–946. 18 Eveline Cruickshanks, ed., By Force or By Default?: The Revolution of 1688–1689 (Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd, 1989). 19 Jason McElligot, ed., Fear, Exclusion and Revolution: Roger Morrice and Britain in the 1680s (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006).

13

14

Introduction

The interpretation of the Act of Toleration of 1689 has been widely debated, not only by scholars writing about the events, but also by those involved at the time. Some argued that it was meant only as a special temporary dispensation; others argued that it was meant to create a new environment of liberty. James E. Bradley has recently examined the published debates leading up to the Schism Act of 1714.20 Bradley shows that strong opposition to the new liberties offered by the Act of Toleration was already at work as early as 1702, probably earlier. From that time until their climax in the Schism Act, efforts were underway to undermine nonconformity by disallowing their schools and academies, implying “the conviction that the Toleration Act was a temporary expedient.”21 Bradley notes that the High Churchmen were very concerned with the ongoing training of Dissenting ministers, since it was these very ministers who led the way toward disloyalty. In response, Nonconformists argued that the Act of Toleration necessarily included the “right to educate their own ministers.”22 A thorough study of these Dissenting academies was undertaken in the early 2000s under the direction of Dr. David Wykes and Professor Isabel Rivers.23 1.1.4 Later Controversies We can see, then, that the scholarship of this era has focused to some extent on controversies that have had significant political, religious, or cultural outcomes. One such controversy, which has received ample attention by scholars, began with a 1709 sermon by High-Churchman Dr. Henry Sacheverell in which he declared, in scathing terms, his opposition to Dissenters and the practice of occasional conformity. In this sermon, Sacheverell not only indicted the Dissenters, but also Low Churchmen and others who showed any affinity toward the Nonconformists and toleration. Sacheverell was tried for his printed sermon before both the House of

20 James E. Bradley, “Nonconformist Schools, The Schism Act, and the Limits of Toleration in England’s Confessional State,” in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema (Brill: Leiden, 2013), pp. 597–611. 21 Bradley, “Nonconformist Schools,” p. 598. 22 Bradley, “Nonconformist Schools,” p. 603. James Owen, in his own defense of Dissenting academies used this very line of reasoning: “Since they [Dissenters] are allow’d the Benefit of a Ministry in their Religious Assemblies, it seems highly reasonable they shou’d be permitted to Educate a sufficient Number of Scholars for the Ministry.” Moderation Still a Virtue (London: 1704), p. 98. 23 The Queen Mary Centre for Religion and Literature in English (qmulreligionandliterature.co.uk/ research/the-dissenting-academies-project/). See also David L. Wykes, “Religious Dissent, the Church, and the Repeal of the Occasional Conformity and Schism Acts, 1714–1719,” in Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–1832, pp. 165–183.

Eighteenth-Century English Ecclesiologies

Lords and Commons and impeached because of the political implications of his positions.24 Although he was found guilty, what followed was only a “trivial sentence” and an outpouring of public support for Sacheverell and his cause. This controversy led to an electoral defeat of the Whigs and a great victory for the Tories.25 Much has been written regarding the political outcomes and tide-turning impact of Sacheverell’s trial, including a monograph by Geoffrey Holmes that focuses entirely on the context and substance of the trial.26 Much has been written concerning Benjamin Hoadly, the bishop of the Welsh diocese of Bangor, who set off a prolific published debate with his 1717 sermon entitled The Nature of the Kingdom, or Church, of Christ.27 The Bangorian Controversy revealed the complex relationship between Anglicanism and nonconformity, specifically addressing one of the key aspects of their division: the form of church government. A unique element of the Bangorian Controversy was that it was initially a conflict within Anglicanism itself, since one of their own bishops used Nonconformist language and principles to, in essence, question the authority of the episcopate itself. Here he appeared to be indicting his own church (not to mention his own office) by asserting that Christ was the sole law-giver and only judge over conscience. A flurry of pamphlets and sermons followed. Recent works have examined the deep impact of this controversy and the related implications for Low-Church relations with nonconformity.28 This political and social context of the eighteenth-century English Church has been carefully studied.

1.2

Eighteenth-Century English Ecclesiologies

As a moderate Dissenter, James Owen viewed the Anglican Church as a flawed but true church, a part of the visible body of Christ. His support of the practice of occasional conformity was a natural outgrowth of his ecclesiology, specifically his understanding of the universal church which, for Owen, meant the whole Protestant religion. Maintaining that the Anglican Church of the seventeenth century was orthodox in the essentials was important for Owen and other moderates advancing their Protestant ecumenism and their semi-separatist perspective. It was only because they believed that the Church of England was doctrinally sound that

24 Gordon Rupp, Religion in England 1688–1791 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 67–68. 25 Rupp, Religion in England, p. 69. 26 E.g., Geoffrey Holmes, The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell (London: Eyre Methuen Ltd, 1973). See also various survey accounts such as William Gibson, The Church of England 1688–1832: Unity and Accord (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 78–83 and Rupp, Religion in England, pp. 64–71. 27 Gibson, Enlightenment Prelate; Starkie, The Church of England and the Bangorian Controversy. 28 See especially Rutherford, “Reformation Principles,” pp. 352ff.

15

16

Introduction

they were wont to pursue unity with it, initially through comprehension and later occasional conformity. The catholic sensibilities of these moderates compelled them toward unifying with those they considered true brethren in their Lord. At the same time, however, Owen was cognizant of significant theological differences with regard to church, church office, and ordination. As mentioned earlier, over the past three decades, the Church of England has been the subject of extensive and rigorous research that has enhanced the reputation of eighteenth-century Anglicanism in almost all aspects. This improved reputation has been reinforced by studies of the overall health of the Church, of moderate Anglicans, High-Church Anglicans, as well as by examinations of Low-Church clergy. Since Sykes, scholars have labored to revive the reputation of the religious life of the eighteenth-century church, perhaps especially the reputations of its clergy. In 1993, John Walsh, Colin Haydon, and Stephen Taylor edited a series of essays examining the eighteenth-century Church of England taking seriously the importance of religion even beyond ecclesiastical issues, looking at the political, social, and cultural impact of religion. Admittedly limited in scope, this work attempted to revive the standing of the Church by examining Anglican clergy, laity, church and societal reforms, and even the question of identity. In each case, a more robust view of the Church was offered.29 In his The Church of England 1688–1832: Unity and Accord, William Gibson articulated the position that the Anglican Church of the eighteenth-century was both stronger and more unified than previously thought. He argued that “[t]hroughout the eighteenth century, the episcopate focused on doctrinal and liturgical unity as a critical objective, and high pastoral standards as the means to achieve it.”30 Gibson further indicated that there was a sincere desire for uniformity within Anglicanism after the Act of Toleration which led to care regarding “the preparation and examination of candidates for orders.”31 He went on to write about the eighteenth-century episcopate’s seriousness regarding pastoral care of their parishes and the need to catechize as a means of developing “those features of the Church which would attract parishioners away from Dissent [...].”32 Gibson’s observation here highlights the new reality the Church of England faced with the passing of the Act of Toleration. The Church would now have to compete with Dissenting congregations and convince the people that Anglicanism best met their personal needs. This question precisely, of whether the Church of England or Dissenting

29 John Walsh, Colin Haydon, and Stephen Taylor, The Church of England c. 1689–c. 1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 30 Gibson, The Church of England, p. 116. 31 Gibson, The Church of England, p. 117. 32 Gibson, The Church of England, p. 121.

Eighteenth-Century English Ecclesiologies

congregations best met needs, was taken up by the moderate Nonconformists like Owen, as will be examined below in chapters 5 and 6. An article by William Gibson regarding the unity of Anglicans and Dissent during the time of the Glorious Revolution reveals a rather complex relationship during the late- seventeenth and early-eighteenth centuries.33 Although persecution of Dissent was common during the Restoration period, the Dissenters stood side by side with the established Church in opposition to King James. Gibson argues that this unity was influenced by the Collection of Cases (1685), a series of Anglican published works that encouraged unity within Protestantism in England advocating the comprehension of Dissent into the established Church. The Collection of Cases was published in London only a few years prior to the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Toleration and was instrumental in garnering Nonconformist support against James II, whose approval of was equally offensive to both groups. According to Gibson, although there was unity within Protestantism in favor of the Revolution, the toleration that came after it gave the established Church even more reason to urge comprehension and unity—their role in society was at stake. Owen and other moderate Dissenters were also in favor of Protestant unity, although, as we will see, they were not in agreement as to what unity consisted of nor how it ought to be achieved. The Collection of Cases was republished several times, including a fourth edition around the time of the Bangorian Controversy.34 John Spurr’s The Restoration Church of England both defends the strength of Anglicanism in the mid- to late-seventeenth century and provides a very helpful analysis of Anglican ecclesiology, which Spurr argues was significantly developed during this era.35 With regard to the Church of England’s self-understanding, Spurr articulated key differences between the Anglican Church and other European Reformed Churches, arguing that even from the outset the Church of England “simply continued as a purified version of the medieval church.”36 Jean-Louis Quantin takes the identity question further back than simply the medieval church and examines the Anglican use of the early fathers and their claims on the primitive church.37 The clergy of the Church often referred back to the fathers, making Owen’s scholarship of antiquities significant. In his work on High-Church and nonjuring Anglicans, Robert D. Cornwall has contributed significantly to our understanding of Anglican theology, particularly

33 William Gibson, “Dissenters, Anglicans, and the Glorious Revolution,” The Seventeenth Century 22, no. 1 (February 2007): pp. 168–84. 34 Gibson, “Dissenters, Anglicans,” p. 180. 35 Spurr, The Restoration Church, p. 106. 36 Spurr, The Restoration Church, p. 109. 37 Jean-Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford University Press, 2009).

17

18

Introduction

in the area of ecclesiology. His examination of High-Church Anglican ecclesiology revealed the essential doctrinal claim of apostolicity by this group of clergy, which required the view of an unbroken apostolic succession.38 In Visible and Apostolic as well as in his more recent work on the lay-baptism controversy of the early-eighteenth century, Cornwall shows the significance of apostolic succession in High-Church thinking and the schism it created within the Church of England with heightened difficulties with Dissent.39 Cornwall however, importantly, argues that already within the Church of England there was a pluralism with regard to ecclesiology as shown by the varying responses to the lay-baptism controversy. Although all Anglicans held to Episcopalianism, the necessity of bishops for valid ministry was not equally accepted. Fear of delegitimizing continental Reformed churches was among the most important arguments against the view that required episcopal authorization for valid ministry.40 Referring, for example, to Locke’s “proteges” within Anglicanism, including Bishop Hoadly, Cornwall suggests that their understanding of the church more closely resembled Nonconformist ecclesiology than it did the traditional position of the Church of England.41 This pluralism found within the Church is helpful in understanding Owen’s appeal to more moderate Anglicans in his various published works. Cornwall’s earlier work on High-Church soteriology is also a valuable resource for understanding some of the ecclesiological reasons for the Church’s adamant position against schism.42 In examining Anglican ecclesiology, the significance of moderate Anglicans, often called latitudinarian, cannot be overlooked which is evident in the growing body of literature addressing the group’s changing reputation. Although the traditional view regarded these clergymen as another step toward secularization and has emphasized their apparent heterodoxy, a number of more recent studies have sought to adjust and modify this perspective. In his 1993 monograph, W.M. Spellman challenged the traditional view and demonstrated that latitudinarians “were much closer to a traditional Protestant view of man’s essential nature and his subsequent need for divine assistance than critics of the movement are generally prepared to recognize.”43 Spellman urged that latitudinarians be examined within 38 Robert D. Cornwall, Visible and Apostolic: The Constitution of the Church in High Church Anglican and Non-Juror Thought (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993), pp. 64–65. 39 Robert D. Cornwall, “Politics and the Lay Baptism Controversy in England, 1708–15,” in Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–1832, pp. 147–163. 40 Cornwall, “Politics and Lay Baptism,” 155ff. It will be shown below that this argument was used a decade earlier by James Owen in his defense of Dissenting ordination. 41 Cornwall, Visible and Apostolic, p. 24. 42 Robert D. Cornwall, “The Church and Salvation: An Early Eighteenth-Century High Church Anglican Perspective,” in Anglican and Episcopal History, vol. 62, no. 2 (June 1993), pp. 175–191. 43 W.M. Spellman, The Latitudinarians and the Church of England, 1660–1700 (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1993), p. 6.

Eighteenth-Century English Ecclesiologies

their seventeenth-century context and on the basis of their own theological and cultural milieu rather than through an eighteenth-century lens looking back to discover causes of secularization. When studied on their own merits, the men of latitude were true sons of the church, moderate to be sure, but still within Protestant orthodoxy. In her 1999 doctoral dissertation, Rebecca Louise Warner examined the related category of Low Churchmen, indicating that there was at least a subtle difference in the way the language of latitude and Low-Church were understood at the time. The accusation of being a man of latitude was a slight, denoting “extremism and heterodoxy.”44 The language of Low-Church referred to those who were moderate in their ecclesiology, especially toward nonconformity, and who saw Rome as more a threat to the Church of England than Dissent.45 The Low Churchmen, many of whom would also be seen as latitudinarian, were open to the possibility of comprehension, particularly during the reign of James II under the threat of the advancement of popery.46 Moderates both inside and outside of the Church attempted for years to establish union among protestants; Owen’s support of occasional conformity came from a similar desire. Dissenting ecclesiology of the period has not had a great deal of attention. Studies have been published in the past three decades that focus on individual Nonconformists and their ecclesiological positions as more broadly representative. In his 1986 Oxford dissertation, James Travis Spivey, Jr. examined the moderation of Edmund Calamy as an exemplar of Nonconformist “middle way men” of a Baxterian genus.47 Spivey traces Calamy’s ability to maintain a theological and ecclesiastical “middle way” throughout a period of rapid change for Dissent. In 2003, Martin Sutherland tied Calamy’s moderate nonconformity to the ecclesiology developed in the works of seventeenth-century Presbyterian John Howe.48 The following year, David P. Field also published a study on the moderate Presbyterianism of Howe, although he does not interact with Sutherland’s monograph.49 Field characterizes moderate Presbyterianism as Howe’s softer version of Calvinism and his emphasis on the distinction between essentials and non-essentials, an emphasis Howe shared with moderates of all stripes, including moderate Dissenters as will be seen in

44 45 46 47

Warner, “Early Eighteenth Century Low Churchmanship,” p. 80. Warner, “Early Eighteenth Century Low Churchmanship,” p. 81. Warner, “Early Eighteenth Century Low Churchmanship,” 390ff. James Travis Spivey, Jr., “Middle Way Men, Edmund Calamy, and the Crises of Moderate Nonconformity (1688–1732)” (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 1986). 48 Martin Sutherland, Peace, Toleration and Decay: The Ecclesiology of Later Stuart Dissent (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2003). 49 David P. Field, ‘Rigide Calvinisme in a Softer Dresse’: The Moderate Presbyterianism of John Howe, 1630–1705 (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2004).

19

20

Introduction

chapter 3 below.50 In similar fashion, Richard Baxter, eminent Puritan pastor and theologian, and his understanding of the church is the subject of Paul Chang-Ha Lim’s In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Context.51 Lim convincingly reveals a Baxterian ecclesiology that emphasizes the role of scripture and holds in tension the pursuit of both purity and unity. Both Baxter and Howe appear to have influenced James Owen whose friendship with Calamy will be developed below.

1.3

Moderation and Occasional Conformity

1.3.1 Moderation The description of “moderate” or “sober” was used for the Nonconformists who were considered less radical and more inclined toward comprehension than separation, often a label given to Presbyterian descendants of the Puritans. Scholars have addressed particular aspects of the struggle for comprehension, often noting the position Presbyterians found themselves in, desiring inclusion in the Church but unwilling to acquiesce to the full “assent and consent” required by the Act of Uniformity. James Owen was among these moderates who were actively involved in promoting ecclesiastical moderation grounded in a moderate ecclesiology which viewed the Church as true but flawed. This understanding among moderates led to the practice of occasional conformity, a practice that became the focal point for significant controversy in the early part of the eighteenth century. Although there are no recent works of significant length examining the life or thought of James Owen, Owen’s brother Charles wrote a hagiographic biography within a few years of James’ passing.52 This 166–page work is significant both because of the information it covers and because of the fact that it was written so soon after Owen’s death, indicating some level of Owen’s prominence. In his work, Charles emphasized not only his brother’s intellectual weight but his pious moderation.53 Recently, Mark Burden included a section on James Owen in his massive study of Dissenting tutors, noting that “James Owen is significant because he is the first tutor for whom a detailed printed biography exists.”54 Burden utilizes

50 Field, ‘Rigide Calvinisme in a Softer Dresse’, pp. 44–51. 51 Paul Chang-Ha Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Context (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2004). 52 Charles Owen, Some account of the life and writings of the late pious and learned Mr. James Owen (London: 1709). 53 Charles Owen, Some account, pp. 22, 48–49, 65, et al. 54 Burden, Biographical Dictionary of Tutors, p. 407.

Moderation and Occasional Conformity

the biography to uncover important information regarding the curriculum used in Dissenting academies and the type of schedules the academies would keep. Yet in this brief entry, Burden questions Charles Owen’s view of his brother as “ecumenical” pointing to the many controversies into which James entered.55 It will be seen in the chapters that follow that Owen’s moderation was no ecumenical compromise but a reasoned position, one he desired to persuade others to hold as well. More broadly and with regard to biographies, there has been significant work done on the lives of Richard Baxter,56 John Howe,57 Edmund Calamy58 and, recently, a number of other Dissenters in this period.59 Moderate Dissent continues to be the subject of research within a broad framework of renewed interest in the interdependence of religion and politics during the late-seventeenth century,60 yet there is room for further research. It is important to note that Baxter, Howe, and Calamy are each studied with a particular focus on their moderation, though perhaps variously defined. Each defended a version of occasional conformity and each was in favor of some semblance of unity with the Anglicans. Each also responded uniquely to the Act of Uniformity’s insistence on reordination. Secondary literature on the question of reordination during this period is sparse and the issue is generally included as part of the overall defense of the legitimacy of nonconformity. Owen’s involvement in the debate surrounding Dissenting ordination will be taken up in chapter 5. In chapter 3 we will return to the theme of moderate Dissent by examining the individuals and influences surrounding James Owen and their moderation. 1.3.2 Occasional Conformity The debate regarding occasional conformity has been examined in a number of contexts, primarily within surveys of the period and in journal articles. Michael

55 Burden, Biographical Dictionary of Tutors, pp. 411–412. 56 E.g., Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity (Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2011); Geoffrey F. Nuttall, Richard Baxter (London: Nelson, 1965). 57 David P. Field, ‘Rigide Calvinisme in a Softer Dresse’. 58 Charles William Roundy, “Edmund Calamy (1671–1732): The Principles and Foundations of Dissent” (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1975); Spivey, Jr., “Middle Way Men.” 59 E.g., Hill II, “The Language of Dissent;” Jonathan Edward Warren, “Polity, Piety, and Polemic: Giles Firmin and the Transatlantic Puritan Tradition” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 2014). 60 E.g., Yannick Deschamps, “Daniel Defoe’s Contribution to the Dispute over Occasional Conformity: An Insight into Dissent and ‘Moderation’ in the Early Eighteenth Century,” in Eighteenth Century Studies, vol. 46, no 3 (2013), pp. 349–361; Sandra Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse: The Rhetoric of Occasional Conformity in England, 1697–1711,” in Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, vol. 15, no. 1 (1997), pp. 53–79.

21

22

Introduction

Watts in The Dissenters briefly mentions the early and later debates regarding occasional conformity, providing the context and a brief narration of the political struggles that the Dissenters were experiencing. Similarly, William Gibson gives a brief account of the controversy in The Church of England 1688–1832, examining the subject from the Anglican perspective. Gibson, perhaps more so than Watts, enters into the political significance and conflict, detailing a variety of turns taken and connecting it to the Sacheverell controversy of the early-eighteenth century.61 The Tory-Whig divide and the role of Queen Anne are also brought to prominence in Gibson’s work, as he attempts to untie the knots regarding the relationship between Church and State in England of this period. As with Watts, Gibson’s survey does not enter into the published materials regarding the debate over occasional conformity. The prominence of the debate is well-articulated and that it is significant is revealed with clarity, yet a detailed account of the actual content remains outside the purview of such surveys. In the Journal of British Studies, John Flaningam’s article from 1977, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy: Ideology and Party Politics, 1697–1711,” gives an account of the controversy with significant historical background, as well as work done in the primary sources. Flaningam puts the controversy against the backdrop of the Restoration settlement and the various attempts at comprehension, and the desire to broaden the Church’s confession to include some of the more orthodox Nonconformists, especially Presbyterians. This article brings Richard Baxter’s role in the dispute to light, as he traces Baxter’s own view of occasional conformity and catholic communion “as a means of defending the Dissenters against High Church charges of schism.”62 Further, Flaningam notes that Baxter and other Dissenters of his time also “found it necessary to emphasize their areas of disagreement with the Church in order to maintain their identity and credibility as Dissenters [...].”63 He then examines the published debate surrounding the controversy, delving into materials by Daniel Defoe, Mary Astell, Thomas Wagstaffe, and Henry Sacheverell, to name a few of the prominent figures involved in this debate.64 In a footnote, Flaningam makes a suggestive statement regarding James Owen’s role in the controversy: “During the controversy, the term ‘moderation’ became a catchword (possibly as a partial result of Owen’s Moderation a Virtue and the replies to it) for both sides, but with predictably opposite connotations for each.”65 In his summary of the debates and their significance, Flaningam concludes that the significance of the controversy was centrally political: “The political struggles of Anne’s reign 61 62 63 64 65

Gibson, The Church of England, pp. 75–85. Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” p. 40. Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” p. 40. Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” pp. 38–62. Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” p. 54 footnote 58.

Moderation and Occasional Conformity

involved a wide range of issues and interests, but they were all involved to a greater or lesser degree with the fundamental problem of the nature of the political system itself.”66 Flaningam’s study leaves room for further work to be done from a variety of perspectives. We turn to more recent studies that build upon his work. The controversy over occasional conformity was examined in an article about Daniel Defoe, who, although a Nonconformist, initially expressed support for the Bill against occasional conformity. Yannick Deschamps chronicles Defoe’s arguments but does so in a fascinating article which asserts that a measurable shift occurred in Defoe’s position in December of 1703.67 Deschamps argues against what he deems the “traditional interpretation,” that Defoe’s position on occasional conformity was a “paradox,” and produces a narrative that reveals what may have been Defoe’s motivation for his shifting views. Prior to 1703, Defoe was opposed to the practice of occasional conformity, publishing his forceful views initially in An Enquiry into the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters (London, 1697). In his pre-1703 position, Defoe not only criticizes the practice of occasional conformity but defends aspects of the Occasional Conformity Bill, believing, as Deschamps puts it, “his coreligionists would not be the worse for it.”68 However, Deschamps shows convincingly that after 1703 Defoe no longer expresses the same kind of harsh criticism of the practice. Deschamps writes: “‘Moderation,’ which he had found objectionable when James Owen had endorsed it in Moderation a Virtue, now became his motto (as well as that of Harley and the Court), which he formally embraced in his Review article for 31 October 1704 [...].”69 According to Deschamps, it was Defoe’s employment as a political writer with Robert Harley (a Whig politician and speaker of the House of Commons) that led to the modification in his position. Deschamps’ article reveals just how complex the issue of occasional conformity and moderation could be, as the political, theological, and personal religious conviction all meet in tense encounter. Another perspective from which the debate surrounding occasional conformity has been examined is through the eyes of a rhetorician. Sandra Sarkela’s “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse: The Rhetoric of Occasional Conformity in England 1697–1711,” includes a careful examination of James Owen’s involvement in the debate.70 Sarkela considers the political expedience of the language of moderation and the usefulness of such terms in a divided society.71 Her examination of the rhetoric found in the debate uncovers a number of differences in content

66 67 68 69 70 71

Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” p. 61. Deschamps, “Daniel Defoe’s Contribution,” pp. 349–361. Deschamps, “Daniel Defoe’s Contribution,” p. 351. Deschamps, “Daniel Defoe’s Contribution,” p. 355. Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse,” pp. 53–79. Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse,” p. 77.

23

24

Introduction

and form between those in power as the established Church and the marginalized Dissenters. She highlights James Owen in her analysis, stating that Owen’s Moderation a Virtue (1703) “became the focal point because Owen presented his case for occasional conformity in seven clear points which are laid out and highlighted by italic type on page one of the pamphlet. This forced others to address the issues on his terms, giving supporters of occasional conformity an argumentative advantage.”72 Sarkela further argues that the debate over occasional conformity and the philosophical underpinnings of moderation as a position were precursors to arguments for separation of church and state.73 Mark Knights’ article in a 2005 publication of Parliamentary History: Parliament and Dissent examines the ways in which those who supported occasional conformity were represented by opponents.74 Knights helpfully traces accusations of hypocrisy and insincerity, noting that those on either side of the occasional conformity debate used such language to label the other. Those who, like Owen, attempted to present themselves as moderates were accused of having a lack of conviction and hiding their actual motives. Both sides laid claim to true moderation and “shared an ideal of dispassionate, moderate, sober, rational and sincere public discourse and action.”75 This shared ideal, though hardly met by either party, led to the growing desire for politeness within debate. The particular issue of occasional conformity itself has significance beyond the historical debate that extended over the course of nearly the entire eighteenth century. The philosophical and theological implications are vast and may even have played a role in the later development of the doctrine of the separation of church and state.76 Moderation was important in that it was a position which was a middle-way but not a compromise, at least not in the view of those who held to it. At the same time, the debate over occasional conformity was politically significant and led to a number of changes within English politics.77 Up until this point, the work done on the contents of the pamphlet debate has mainly focused on the political issues and not as much on the theological or, more specifically, the 72 Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse,” p. 68. 73 In her article, Sarkela utilizes a pamphlet entitled, Moderation Pursued to the End of the Line (London, 1704), and attributes it to James Owen. According to ESTC, Moderation Pursued is anonymously attributed. Sarkela responded to the current author’s inquiry with an attribution from the British Library indicating James Owen as author. Unfortunately, upon closer examination, the author is convinced that this work does not fit within the Owenian corpus. 74 Mark Knights, “Occasional Conformity and the Representation of Dissent: Hypocrisy, Sincerity, Moderation and Zeal,” in Parliamentary History: Parliament and Dissent, ed. Stephen Taylor and David L. Wykes (Edinburgh University Press, 2005), pp. 41–57. 75 Knights, “Occasional Conformity,” p. 57. 76 Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse,” esp. p. 69. 77 Gibson, The Church of England 1688–1832, pp. 75–85.

Outline

ecclesiological. Owen, as theologically orthodox and, at heart, a shepherd, allows an entry point that is fundamentally religious. His initial pamphlet, Moderation a Virtue, is acknowledged by many to be one of, if not, the most significant written in the debate. According to Sandra Sarkela, it set the agenda for the rest, as the clarity of his work demanded clear responses. Any attempt at understanding the heart of the debate over occasional conformity would be wise to understand the context and development of one of its main proponents. This study sets out to provide just that kind of examination, particularly in chapter 6 where the topic of occasional conformity is discussed in detail.

1.4

Outline

Below, Owen’s life and intellectual contributions will be explored. Chapter 2 examines the historical setting into which Owen was born, the religious context in which he was nurtured, and the ecclesiastical and political environment in which he lived and wrote. In order to understand some of the personal influences in Owen’s life, chapter 3 will consider a number of other moderate Dissenters with whom Owen had some connection and will investigate their particular versions of moderation. Chapter 4 will provide a basic outline of Owen’s own theological methodology, focusing primarily on Owen’s sources of authority. The two significant published debates in which Owen figured prominently will be taken up in chapters 5 and 6, beginning with the controversy over Presbyterian ordination, followed by the debate regarding occasional conformity.

25

2.

Context and Background of James Owen

The period of Restoration, Revolution, and Toleration in England was complex and the times uncertain. It was within this period of rapid change, political uncertainty, and ecclesiastical volatility that James Owen (1654–1706) was born, reared, and trained to think and reason. David Appleby characterizes the political system of the period as “inherently unstable, neurotic, and inconstant [...].”1 Scholarship regarding the era is equally complex and has undergone recent shifts, as the role of religion and orthodox religious thinkers is no longer being minimized.2 The theological, ecclesiastical, and political met in heightened intensity during a period in which all parties were vying for power and status, some attempting to bring a new norm, others attempting to sustain the comforts of the ancien regime, hoping to undo the wrongs that had occurred during the Civil War and Interregnum periods. Although the study of history can never neatly fit within artificial categories, what follows is an attempt to delineate the context in which James Owen developed his particular worldview. As is always the case, Owen lived within a world in which the line between religion and politics was blurred, separating theology from ideology nearly impossible. His works, though in some regards diverse in nature, all appear to pivot along a similar theme: a defense of moderate nonconformity and an attempt to legitimize Dissent. The influences in his life include people close to him but also events and ideas that surrounded him. He was both an advocate of change and a product of his time. As with any overview, this chapter will attempt to offer a sampling of the many significant historical forces which impacted Owen, without exhausting any of them.

2.1

The Unsettling Restoration Settlement

2.1.1 Division and Confusion Though outside the purview of this chapter, the English Civil War cast a long shadow over succeeding generations. Although the war formally ended sometime before

1 David Appleby, “From Ejectment to Toleration in England, 1662–89,” in The Great Ejectment of 1662: Its Antecedents, Aftermath, and Ecumenical Significance, ed. Alan P. F. Sell (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2012), p. 68. 2 See Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie, eds., The Politics of Religion in Restoration England (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1990).

28

Context and Background of James Owen

1652, it was not until the Restoration that the turmoil of the period of conflict was to abate, but even then, firm and lasting peace was elusive. Tension ran high and skepticism ran deep, as the son of the executed king returned to take his place upon the throne of England. In 1660, as Charles II returned the house of Stuart to power, he ascended the throne to rule a country deeply divided politically, ecclesiastically, and theologically. During the period of 1640 to 1660, both Puritanism and the Church of England experienced disintegration, leading to “hundreds of independent and semi-independent congregations [...],” and a pluralism that would remain a fixture for generations.3 Douglas Lacey adds regarding the state of religious pluralism at the time of the Restoration: “There was too wide a variety and too great an intensity of religious belief prevalent in England at the Restoration for Anglican leaders to realize their hopes of attaining religious uniformity. Instead, the new Act of Uniformity and the first Conventicle Act completed the transformation of Puritanism into Dissent.”4 These religious divisions and the politicization of religion would assume a place of prominence in the coming decades as would the struggle for this new identity adopted by the descendants of the Puritans. One of the pressing issues of the day concerned those who refused to conform to the Anglican Church and its Book of Common Prayer. After years of being out of power and finally recovering their role as the Church of England, Anglican clergy and members of Parliament were unwilling to risk another revolution. According to Michael Watts, the new Parliament which commenced its governing in 1661, the Cavalier Parliament as it came to be known, believed that “every Presbyterian was a potential rebel and every Independent a regicide at heart.”5 This apprehension from Parliament encountered a king who was openly supportive of the toleration of Nonconformists and this conflict led to a struggle for power often marked by harsh persecution of Dissent.6 Religion was the stage upon which the complexities of English aims and aspirations would be played out. The Cavalier Parliament would pass legislation that would set the course of conflict for decades to come. Prior to the ejection of 1662, the result of the Act of Uniformity, there were moments of hope for Nonconformists, especially Presbyterians. Moving quickly to have their own elected to Parliament, Nonconformists had early gains. Efforts were being made to broaden the tent of the Church of England to be able to include at least some who were currently unwilling to conform fully to the Church of England,

3 J.F. McGregor and B. Reay, eds., Radical Religion in the English Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 9–10. 4 Douglas R. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England, 1661–1689: A Study in the Perpetuation and Tempering of Parliamentarianism (Rutgers University Press: 1969), p. 15. 5 Michael Watts, The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 221. 6 Watts, The Dissenters, p. 222.

The Unsettling Restoration Settlement

particularly the Presbyterians who favored a national church. However, as Norman Sykes keenly put it, “The Presbyterians indeed were bluffed out of their senses by a series of apparently favourable portents and promises, whilst their adversaries were taking possession of the church by stealth.”7 Not only was the desired Presbyterian goal of comprehension not achieved, after the Savoy Conference of 1661 which attempted a revision of the Book of Common Prayer, the Anglicans had risen to power and Presbyterians were left scratching their heads as to how this opportunity was lost.8 Soon after, a series of Acts were passed by Parliament meant to completely undo any gains Nonconformists had won during the previous two decades and allow for the strengthening of Anglicanism. 2.1.2 Anglicanism Revived Beginning with the Corporation Act of 1661, Parliament passed a series of antiDissent legislation that would effectively make it illegal to practice nonconformity with impunity. The goal was to maintain control of government in the hands of those faithful to the Church of England, a conviction James Owen would come into conflict with head on.9 Those who would hold public office would be required to partake in the Lord’s Supper according to the rites of the Anglican Church as taught in the Book of Common Prayer. They were also to vow allegiance to the King and swear non-resistance.10 One of the most significant of these Acts, which have come to be known jointly as the Clarendon Code, was the Act of Uniformity of 1662. This move by Parliament required not only that clergy partake in Anglican communion but that they conform to a strict Anglicanism. In distinguishing between the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity and the Act of 1662, Sykes notes that “a promise of remarkable stringency was also required of them [the clergy] [...]in respect of the Book of Common Prayer, whereby they had to declare their ‘unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by’ the said book.”11 Furthermore, clergy were required to pledge that they would not work to change aspects of the liturgy that they did not approve.12 This Act also disqualified from service all those who had not been ordained by Anglican bishops

7 Norman Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker: Aspects of English Church History 1660–1768 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), p. 3. 8 Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker, p. 4. 9 Christopher Hill, The Century of Revolution: 1603–1714 (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 194. 10 Geoffrey Holmes, The Making of a Great Power: Late Stuart and early Georgian Britain 1660–1722 (New York: Longman, 1993), pp. 454–5. 11 Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker, p. 5. 12 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 22.

29

30

Context and Background of James Owen

by the deadline of St. Bartholomew’s Day of 1662 (August 24).13 Nonconformist clergy, especially those of moderate Dissent, were forced by this Act to make a decision to separate. Douglas Lacey captures the inner conflict well: “By the law they had been made Separatists, yet almost all of them desired to remain within the Established Church.”14 The political power wielded against the moderates led to a fissure between their theological sensibilities and their practice; they desired unity but under the circumstances had to separate. This ecclesiological tension would remain as part of the moderate Dissent’s identity to the time of Owen’s ministry and beyond. Upon the heels of the Act of Uniformity came further legislation that forbade the gathering of Nonconformists for worship and prohibited Dissenting clergy from being found within five miles of the churches where they had previously served. Earlier in the century, Puritans often practiced what was known as partial or occasional conformity. Many, including eminent Puritans Richard Baxter and Philip Henry would attend and participate in Anglican services, at the same time as they were leading Nonconformist congregations. After this series of Acts, “[i]f a person attended any Nonconformist service at all, he became a Dissenter according to the law.”15 The heavy hand of Anglicanism forced many to go against their own theological and ecclesiastical persuasions in order to separate. John Locke had warned early on that persecution of Dissent would lead to their unity against their persecutors and the Clarendon Code and such anti-Nonconformist legislation did exactly that, virtually creating Dissent.16 Important to our understanding of the Restoration period was the association of Dissent with the causes of Civil War; and inversely, Anglicanism’s association with the defense of Church and Crown. The coalition of High-Church Anglicans and royalists made efforts to cast doubt regarding Nonconformists’ loyalty to the Crown. Tim Harris notes: Tory propaganda proved so effective because it appealed to widespread and deep-seated Anglican sensibilities which had their roots in the experiences of the 1640s and 1650s. This deep mistrust of puritanism can be found throughout the Restoration, being particularly intense in the early years of Charles II’s reign, and merely reaching a renewed and heightened intensity during the 1680s.17

13 14 15 16

Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker, p. 5; Watts, The Dissenters, p. 218–219. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 19. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 25. John Seed, Dissenting Histories: Religious Division and the Politics of Memory in Eighteenth-Century England (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008), p. 6. 17 Tim Harris, “Introduction: Revising the Restoration,” in The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, Tim Harris, Paul Seaward, and Mark Goldie, eds. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1990), p. 16.

The Unsettling Restoration Settlement

The bond between Church and Crown was firm and Tories saw themselves as defenders of this unity against popery as well as Dissenting and Whig radicals.18 Paul Seaward argues convincingly that Archbishop Gilbert Sheldon himself worked tirelessly to form an anti-Nonconformist coalition with London elites and the Church: “Gilbert Sheldon, and the country gentry and city elites were both powerful influences in the creation of the Restoration settlement; to some extent they were partners [...].”19 Seaward suggests that Sheldon would have been actively involved in the development of the Acts which made up the Clarendon Code.20 Appleby asserts: “Although there was no single mastermind behind the Act of Uniformity, Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London was indisputably the most prominent figure in its conception, formulation, and subsequent enforcement.”21 Although the King was not in favor of the Act, “Charles found it expedient to give way to the Cavalier gentry over the matter of Uniformity.”22 He was not yet able to do without the financial support of Parliament. Sheldon’s labor and the King’s political savvy notwithstanding, by the early-1670s, it was apparent that King Charles desired to be free from Parliament’s interference. In 1670, he made a secret treaty with France, promising to declare himself a Roman Catholic when appropriate in return for financial support.23 His affinity toward Roman Catholicism and his alliance with France made him even more partial toward toleration, especially since he could open the doors for Roman Catholics to worship as well. In 1672, he offered a royal indulgence that opened the way for Protestant Dissenters to gather for public worship after receiving government issued licenses and also allowed for Roman Catholics to worship privately with legal protections.24 This indulgence forced Nonconformists to confront their parliamentarian sensibilities and ask the question of whether Dissenters should accept this royal forbearance or not. Some, like many of the Baptists, refused to apply for licenses, convinced that the right to worship was a right granted by God and therefore absolute.25 Another segment of Dissent called for parliamentary confirmation of the indulgence, as this would have grounded the freedom in law rather than in the king. Lacey summarizes the Dissenting predicament:

18 Harris, “Introduction,” pp. 14ff. 19 Paul Seaward, “Gilbert Sheldon, the London Vestries, and the Defence of the Church,” in The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, Harris, Seaward, and Goldie, eds., p. 69 (but also throughout the chapter). 20 Seaward, “Gilbert Sheldon,” p. 66. 21 Appleby, “From Ejectment to Toleration,” p. 72. 22 Appleby, “From Ejectment to Toleration,” p. 71. 23 Hill, The Century of Revolution, p. 195. 24 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 64. 25 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 66.

31

32

Context and Background of James Owen

The King’s Indulgence of 1672 was a severe test of the Dissenters’ parliamentarian political beliefs. Although many of them condoned the grant tacitly, only a few did so explicitly, and nearly all of these men changed their minds after reconsideration. All Dissenters would have preferred parliamentary authorization for any freedom of worship, and apart from those who wavered in 1672 they remained dedicated to the concept of a monarchy which would be effectively restrained by Parliament and in which basic legal rights and religious liberty would be insured by fundamental laws.26

Dissenting principles clearly put them at odds with the very authority that desired to grant them freedom. This move by the king was also strongly opposed by the Earl of Danby who had risen in the King’s court and who advocated the Test Acts instead. According to Mark Goldie, “In the 1670s the Earl of Danby had to strive anew to persuade Charles II to behave like a true son of Charles the Martyr.”27 The proposed Test Acts were ostensibly meant to keep Roman Catholics out of office, especially since the King was suspected to have sympathies toward the papacy. Nevertheless, the attack was against Dissent as well. Goldie describes the situation in the 1670s: “Danby’s instruments were, to a remarkable degree, the bishops, together with a new and confident generation of clergy, bred in the purged universities of the 1660s, eager and impatient ideologues, keen to do no less than annihilate the wretched remnants of the regicidal era.”28 As part of a program to protect Church and State, Danby purged government of non-Anglicans, married off James’s daughter Mary to the Protestant William of Orange, and called for the Compton Census “to prove to king and nation the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Church of England.”29 2.1.3 Leading up to the “Glorious” Revolution An interesting and, perhaps paradoxical, reality during the latter parts of Charles’ reign was the conflict over the exclusion of his brother James from the English throne. Although firmly against Roman Catholicism, Anglicans and Tories like Danby were in favor of the right for James to ascend to the throne, regardless of his open Catholicism. At the same time, the High-Church party wanted to reduce the king’s authority over the Church and desired to “tame him”.30 By 1674, there was a shift in Charles’ policies, as he came to the realization that his support for

26 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 70. 27 Mark Goldie, “Danby, the Bishops and the Whigs,” in The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, Harris, Seaward, and Goldie, eds., p. 77. 28 Goldie, “Danby,” p. 81. 29 Goldie, “Danby,” p. 82. 30 Goldie, “Danby,” pp. 86ff.

The Unsettling Restoration Settlement

toleration was not accomplishing its desired end, freedom for Catholicism.31 As time progressed, the question of who would ascend the throne after Charles’ passing became more urgent. The reason for the concern was simple: James, the Duke of York, Charles’ brother, was an openly avowed Roman Catholic. The implication was likewise uncomplicated, as one Dissenter argued, “[t]he Pope is your king if you have a Popish successor [...].”32 Anxieties regarding a Catholic takeover were exacerbated by the stories of an alleged plot against the life of King Charles in order to replace him with his brother James.33 The Whigs used fear of the Plot to their advantage “and represented James’s exclusion from the throne as the only sure safeguard against it.”34 Charles rejected the idea of exclusion and instead sought limitations on a Catholic successor.35 This “Popish Plot” was one of the key factors in the disintegrating relationship between King and Parliament and would lead to the Exclusion Parliaments from 1678–81.36 The concern over the ascension of James to the throne led Parliament to propose a number of Exclusion Bills. However, the King simply dissolved Parliament to avoid a vote. The new elections brought in a greater number of Dissenters and moderate Anglicans to Parliament.37 Not to be out-maneuvered, the King once again dissolved Parliament, after receiving financial support from France.38 Over the next few years, both the Rye House Plot (1683) and the Monmouth Rebellion (1685) increased the tension between the King and the Nonconformists. Although it was not only the Dissenters that opposed James’ ascension nor was it that all Dissenters agreed with the unsuccessful coup attempts, it was the Dissenters that received the brunt of the backlash that followed. This backlash included both violence and the loss of status, as Charles made every effort to rid the country of Dissenting influences.39 Douglas Lacey summarizes, Faced by the continuing political and judicial triumphs of the King and his supporters, and also afflicted by increasingly relentless prosecution, Dissenters reacted in various ways. On the one hand there was a reappearance and spread of political quietism. And

31 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 71ff. 32 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 143. 33 Watts, The Dissenters, p. 253; John L Miller, Popery and Politics in England 1660–1688 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 154–188. 34 Miller, Popery and Politics, p. 154. 35 Miller, Popery and Politics, p. 154. 36 Miller, Popery and Politics, pp. 169–182; Hill, The Century of Revolution, pp. 229–230. 37 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, pp. 134ff. 38 Watts, The Dissenters, p. 254. 39 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 150.

33

34

Context and Background of James Owen

on the other a growing tendency to conform at least occasionally and to continue such political activity as was possible.40

As we will see, the move toward partial conformity and remaining politically active became a significant source of conflict and tension in the early-eighteenth century. It was this very issue, the right to conform partially or occasionally, that Owen would take up pen to defend. In this context, “moderation” with regard to Dissent had principally to do with one’s ecclesiology and willingness to have some element of union with the national Church. As will be developed throughout this study, there were significant theological and doctrinal components as well. Yet, the political conflict based on the concerns of Anglicans that Dissenters would infiltrate local governments cannot be minimized. Tension was high in this respect particularly in the period of Toleration as Nonconformists were emboldened to pursue political office.41 In 1685, with the passing of King Charles, James II ascended the throne of England peacefully. In order to make possible Catholic involvement in government, James had to offer a series of Indulgences which suspended the penal laws and Test Acts that had targeted Protestant Dissent as well as Catholic Recusancy.42 Like his brother before him, James shifted his entire political approach to pursue unity with the Nonconformists, angering many Anglicans.43 Lacey even suggests that Dissenters “occupied a pivotal position” for a while and again their hopes were lifted.44 At the same time, because of these political complexities, it appears that the differences between Nonconformist denominations were exacerbated, especially the cleavages between strict Nonconformists and the moderates.45 The major conflict was once again due to Catholicism and differing approaches to prevent its return to ascendancy in England. Baptists and Quakers were on the whole receptive to toleration and the removal of penal laws, while Presbyterians and Congregationalists in general were opposed to anything that could potentially lead to a resurgence of Catholicism.46 It appears that one of the key factors in determining those who were against toleration as proposed by the king and those who were in support of it was the individual’s view of the Church of England. Those who were willing to conform

40 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 155. 41 John Flaningam,“The Occasional Conformity Controversy: Ideology and Party Politics, 1697–1711,” in The Journal of British Studies, vol. 17, no 1 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 42ff. 42 Hill, The Century of Revolution, p. 197ff; Watts, The Dissenters, pp. 256ff; Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, pp. 175ff. 43 Miller, Popery and Politics, pp. 216–217. 44 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 175. 45 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 176. 46 Miller, Popery and Politics, p. 216; Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 178–179.

The Unsettling Restoration Settlement

even partially and who saw the Church as a true Protestant church were opposed to broad toleration offered by the monarch. Strict separatists desired religious liberty, even at the risk of offering freedom for Roman Catholicism.47 The moderate Dissenters wanted comprehension or, at least, religious liberty by an act of Parliament.48 They also wanted “bare liberty” for Catholics, toleration of their private worship without the right to hold office. In other words, they were against the removal of the Test Act and wanted to continue the policy of occasional conformity. Although they had theological issues with Roman Catholicism, their primary opposition was against the right for a Roman Catholic to assume office within government. They would allow for freedom of religion so that the Catholic could privately worship according to his own conscience but believed in a national church and the right to prevent people of certain religious convictions from ascending to power. James’ desire to offer an indulgence then, much like his brother’s, met with opposition, both from Anglicans, but also from those who would most benefit, the Dissenters. The persecution was so intense that any relief offered by the king was welcome; but the fear of and concern regarding the King’s own Catholicism and his desire to restore Catholicism within England loomed large.49 Theological and political reasons caused many to refuse to respond to the King’s declaration and “those Nonconformists who did address the King bowed to the pressure to express their thanks for relief, but they were unwilling to give specific support to his prerogative.”50 The King demanded that bishops have his Declaration of Indulgence of 1688 read in every church within the kingdom on two consecutive Sundays. Seven bishops, including Archbishop Sancroft, refused to do so and were imprisoned in the Tower of London.51 The next month, the seven were found not guilty; later that month, the Queen gave birth to a son, James Edward. Already during this time a coalition between moderate Dissenters and moderate Anglicans was developing, as both groups were looking toward the possibility of the ascension of William of Or-

47 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 179. 48 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 190. 49 William Gibson, James II and the Trial of the Seven Bishops (Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 81. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 180; Tony Claydon, William III and the Godly Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 7. 50 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 181. William Gibson mentions a meeting of leading Dissenters at the house of John Howe in May of 1688 in which the Dissenters refused to sign a declaration of thanks to King James. Gibson suggests that this rejection by the leading Dissenters played a part in James’ petition to the seven bishops. Gibson, James II, p. 81. 51 Hill, The Century of Revolution, p. 198; Gibson, James II, pp. 97–138.

35

36

Context and Background of James Owen

ange to the throne.52 This coalition of sorts began to open doors, as moderates from both sides showed interest and commitment to religious accommodation that included both comprehension for some and toleration for others.53 This convergence of views led to further efforts to erect an acceptable “new religious settlement” that would satisfy both sides.54 Watts comments that James’ persecution of the seven bishops ironically “broke the back of Anglican intolerance and made possible the permanent toleration of Dissent once William of Orange had landed at Torbay and James himself had fled to France.”55 Of course, simple toleration was not the desire of the moderates. 2.1.4 The Era of Toleration The birth of a son to the King, guaranteeing a Catholic heir to the throne, heightened the sense of urgency among both the Dissenters and Anglicans. The die was cast and the process of inviting William Prince of Orange to invade England was soon undertaken. Nonconformists were particularly optimistic during this time, as William and Mary had publicly stated their desire for toleration. Once William invaded, King James fled. Unfortunately for the Dissenters, though the new King showed signs of desiring toleration, the established Church leaders and those in Parliament responded swiftly with opposition. Not only were the Nonconformist proposals to repeal some of the penal legislation rejected, but another bill was proposed to prohibit occasional conformity, enhancing restrictions on the Dissenters.56 Soon the Act of Toleration would be passed and permission to worship publicly would be granted. However, since penal laws were not officially repealed and Toleration was viewed more as an indulgence than law, the trials would continue. The Act of Toleration failed to clarify the status of Dissenting schools and academies, allowing for prosecution of those who conducted courses without proper licenses.57 As further evidence that there was no free ride after Toleration, Watts notes Henry Sacheverell and Daniel Defoe as examples of conflict:

52 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, pp. 186, 204–5; Gibson, James II, pp. 79–80. Gibson notes the significance of the Collection of Cases written by leading Anglican clergy who argued for greater Protestant unity. 53 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 211. 54 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 213. 55 Watts, The Dissenters, p. 259. 56 Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 234. 57 Watts, The Dissenters, p. 264. Geoffrey Holmes, The Making of a Great Power, p. 352.

The Unsettling Restoration Settlement

The arrogant and vindictive High Churchman Henry Sacheverell, himself the grandson of an ejected Presbyterian minister who had died in Dorchester gaol, railed against Dissenters as miscreants begat in rebellion, born in sedition, and nursed in faction. For satirizing such views in The Shortest Way with Dissenters the Presbyterian Daniel Defoe was sentenced in 1703 to stand in the pillory.58

Watts goes on to identify the practice of occasional conformity as the “chief source of contention between High Churchmen and Dissenters in the thirty years following the passing of the Toleration Act [...].”59 For moderate Dissenters, occasional conformity would become the battleground for the legitimacy of nonconformity. Although difficulties for Dissent remained, there were also significant advances. Within the first twenty-one years of Toleration, close to 4,000 licenses for meetinghouses were issued and many (more than 300) were for permanent structures, which Geoffrey Holmes notes “furnished striking testimony to the social influence and material prosperity of the new Dissent as well as to its numerical strength.”60 As to the issue of occasional conformity, even the Lord Mayor of London in the 1690s, Sir Humphrey Edwin, a known Presbyterian, was willing not only to attend a Dissenting congregation, but did so openly and in full regalia on at least two occasions.61 In some cases, outside of London, Dissenters boldly took office even without occasional communion with the established Church. It was in the face of such political tension that Henry Sacheverell preached against Nonconformists and their practice of occasional conformity. The Dissenting academies, which arose during the Restoration, found themselves in a precarious position under Toleration. Although it was no longer illegal for Nonconformists to gather for worship, it was not the case that tutors and schoolmasters were given freedom to teach with impunity. As a matter of fact, persecution of Dissenting tutors continued through William’s reign and was again renewed under Anne.62 These academies, small and numerous, provided Nonconformists with the means to train their next generation of ministers, particularly as the Puritan ministers ejected from the Church of England in 1662 were aging and dying. Many of these ejected ministers had continued to preach in illegal gatherings known as conventicles. As they were no longer able, the need arose to have trained men to replace them. What initially started as a means of employment for Puritan tutors forced out of Oxford and Cambridge by the Act of Uniformity (1662) soon became

58 59 60 61 62

Watts, The Dissenters, pp. 263–264. Watts, The Dissenters, p. 265. Holmes, The Making of a Great Power, p. 353. Holmes, The Making of a Great Power, p. 354. Mark Burden, A Biographical Dictionary of Tutors at the Dissenters’ Private Academies, 1660–1729 (London: Dr. Williams’ Centre for Dissenting Studies, 2013), pp. 16–18.

37

38

Context and Background of James Owen

the preferred means of ministerial training for Dissenters, more accessible than leaving for the Netherlands for university studies abroad.63 Owen was not only a tutor at two such academies in his lifetime, but also went into print defending their right to exist. Attached to Moderation still a virtue (London: 1704), his second major work in defense of the practice of occasional conformity, Owen added A Defence of the Private Academies: Against Mr. Sacheverels Misrepresentation of ’em. For Owen, it was simply a logical necessity: “The same law that grants the end, must be suppos’d to consent to the necessary means also, without which the end cannot be attain’d: Otherwise it wou’d be inconsistent with it self, and insufficient to give ease to tender consciences.”64 Owen argued that the education provided by the academies was not only necessary since Nonconformists were not allowed to study at the universities but added that it was desirable since education leads to moderation.65 It was Owen’s deep-seated belief that the kind of moderation he and his fellow moderate Dissenters practiced was in the best interest of the nation.

2.2

The Church in Wales

The Anglican Church in Wales had its own distinct characteristics that provide a significant context to the life and ministry of James Owen. Because of high levels of poverty and their inability to support its clergy financially, Welsh bishoprics were not highly sought after, and pluralism and the concomitant absenteeism were not uncommon.66 The poor wages for clergy resulted in pastoral care that Philip Jenkins labels “appalling.”67 He refers to one clergyman who had to oversee four parishes and travel eighteen miles on a Sunday in order to conduct services in each. The minister did all of this for a total yearly stipend of £46.68 Accordingly, the people in the parishes of Wales were often neglected and one scholar has suggested that “[m]ost ambitious young bishops avoided their dioceses in Wales like the plague.”69 This was the established Church that Owen was familiar with and the conditions under which he was raised. He remained near Wales for much of his

63 64 65 66

Burden, Biographical Dictionary of Tutors, pp. 13–20. James Owen, Moderation Still A Virtue (London: 1704), p. 98. Owen, Moderation Still A Virtue, pp. 98–99. Philip Jenkins, “Church, nation and language: The Welsh Church,” in The National Church in Local Perspective: The Church of England the Regions, 1660–1800, Jeremy Gregory and Jeffery S. Chamberlain, eds. (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2003), p. 269. 67 Jenkins, “Church, nation and language,” p. 269. 68 Jenkins, “Church, nation and language,” p. 269. 69 Geraint H. Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society in Wales 1660–1730 (Cardiff: University of Wales press, 1978), p. 3.

The Church in Wales

pastoral career, translating important teaching tools into the Welsh language and training up a number of Welsh ministers in his Dissenting academies at Oswestry and later Shrewsbury. Poverty was not the only challenge faced by the Welsh Church; language was also an issue near to the hearts of Welsh laypeople. The Welsh desired to have their services in their own language; however, clergy assigned to their parishes were not always fluent in Welsh and, therefore, were unable to fulfill this expectation. In some cases, Welsh-speaking curates had to be procured70 and, in other cases, English-speaking clergy would simply use the undesirable language. The church and its clergy were depended upon for the “survival of the Welsh language,” and thus as the English language grew to take precedence over Welsh, some, including Stephen Hughes, a Nonconformist under whom James Owen served as an assistant, spoke out against this Anglicization.71 Geraint H. Jenkins mentions the fact that the Welsh language had the reputation of being an “uncouth” language and the Welsh elite themselves apparently desired English, which led clergy to oblige, especially when those affluent and influential families were present in services.72 This attitude toward the Welsh language went beyond the preaching and involved publishing as well. Even charitable organizations that published devotional and instructional materials in Welsh did so as “a short-term expedient calculated to save the souls of those monoglot Welshmen who were poised on the brink of everlasting damnation [...].”73 Yet, the intention and desire was that the next generation would be raised as Englishspeakers. Regardless of their linguistic intentions, Charles Owen mentions a number of “English worthies” who supported the cause of publishing in Welsh, which included translation and education, mainly for the poor Welsh children.74 Within Welsh religion of the late seventeenth century were a complex set of characteristics, including for some an affinity for the relics of Roman Catholicism.75 Hannah Cowell Roberts notes an enduring Catholic presence in Wales into the early modern period, indicating that the Reformation was not quick to take root in this part of Britain.76 M.A. Milton, tracing a religious ambivalence back to the Reformation in Wales, asserts that “[t]he Reformation, as well as the Marian restoration, made only a shallow impact upon any large segment of Welsh society,” adding that Welsh Catholics had very little reaction to Reformed iconoclasts in the

70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Jenkins, “Church, nation and language,” p. 272. Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, p. 9. Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, pp. 10–11. Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, p. 37. Owen, Some Account of the Life, pp. 10–12. Jenkins, “Church, nation and language,” p. 272. Hannah Cowell Roberts, “Re-Examining Welsh Catholicism, c. 1660–1700,” (D.Phil. diss., Swansea University, 2014).

39

40

Context and Background of James Owen

mid-sixteenth century. At the same time, the Reformed faith itself was not received with eagerness.77 Ritualism remained until the late-eighteenth century and Dissent did not always find fertile soil in Wales. Milton suggests that the early resistance to Protestantism in Wales may have been, in part, caused by what he refers to as “British pre-Christian religions” and “the unrelenting hold of paganism.”78 Eryn M. White submits that regarding the Restoration period, “[t]here is sound evidence to substantiate the suggestion that the vast majority of the population in Wales welcomed the restoration of the Established Church and had never been other than reluctant, coerced converts to the Puritan regime.”79 Only a small minority would qualify as Dissenters in Wales in the mid-seventeenth century. However, a peculiar Welsh interest in sermons and, specifically, sermons in plain style opened many doors for both Anglicans and Nonconformists in Wales. Geraint H. Jenkins notes that the people of Wales were known to travel far just to hear a homily.80 Anglican clergy, influenced by the simplicity and clarity of Puritan preaching, used the pulpit to persuade the people toward loyalty and obedience to the Church of England.81 However, whether from the established Church or Dissent, salvation was the central concern of most preaching in Wales.82 Beyond the message of salvation, Welsh preaching was practical, clear, and often ethically strict. As evidence of this claim, Geraint H. Jenkins notes that according to James Owen’s brother Charles, James himself once said, “[t]he end of our ministry is the destruction of sin.”83 In context, Owen was addressing the issue of national sins and the problem of “prophane ministers.” Since preaching was for the sanctification of the listener, Owen asked fellow ministers, “[i]f our ministry be not effectual upon ourselves, what hopes have we that ’twill be so upon others?”84 Owen was remembered by his brother and others for his strict piety, perhaps in part, a consequence of his Welsh upbringing. Yet it was not only Dissenting clergy that preached on issues of conduct; Anglicans too warned against the dangers of vices such as swearing and drinking and called the people to repentance.85

77 M.A. Milton, “The Application of the Theology of the Westminster Assembly in the Ministry of the Welsh Puritan, Vavasor Powell (1617–1670)” (Ph.D. diss., University Wales, Lampeter, 1998), p. 66. 78 Milton, “Vavasor Powell,” p. 68. 79 Eryn M. White, “From Ejectment to Toleration in Wales, 1662–89,” in The Great Ejectment of 1662: Its Antecedents, Aftermath, and Ecumenical Significance, ed. Alan P. F. Sell, p. 125. 80 Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, p. 14. 81 Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, p. 20. 82 Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, p. 30. 83 Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, p. 29; Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 133. 84 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 133. 85 Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, p. 20–21.

The Church in Wales

Despite the common contempt toward the Welsh language, Welsh publishing did experience a significant increase during the late-seventeenth century and earlyto-mid-eighteenth century. Nearly half of what was published was translated into Welsh from English. The publications were practical in intent, focusing on equipping families for the sake of worship and spiritual growth.86 Private and family worship, common among the Puritans, was emphasized as fathers were being called upon to act as priests to their families.87 The concern was the lack of knowledge of the Protestant faith and the fear that the Welsh people could fall back into Catholicism. “The ideal was that every man and child. Armed with the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, a catechism and devotional books of the nature of The Practice of Piety and The Whole Duty of Man, would effectively man the barricades against external threats, forming ‘frontier garrisons’ against Popery and rendering both church and state inviolable.”88 This led to the publishing of Welsh translations of the Bible, prayer books, and catechisms, as tools for instructing families and youth in the faith. Charles Owen highlights the work of Stephen Hughes, Henry Maurice, and Thomas Gouge, each influential in James Owen’s early training and ministry, as worthy of special honor for “their singular services to Wales.” He continues, “the pains they took to propagate Divine Knowledge, and Practical Religion in the obscurer parts of that country, and the vast treasures of charity they expended are incredible.”89 Geraint H. Jenkins summarizes: “One of the salient features of this period is that the central doctrines of the Reformation were disseminated intensively in print, in intelligible and popular forms, for the first time in Wales.”90 As mentioned above, Owen himself both benefitted from and later participated in this proliferation of materials. Although it was a difficult time for Dissent throughout England and Wales, it has come to be known as “the ‘heroic’ or ‘golden’ age of Dissent in Wales.”91 White notes that Welsh nonconformity was “more isolated than in the past” and Dissenting congregations were forced to find new ways to survive, causing this era “to be a vitally important formative period for Welsh Nonconformity.”92 It was the time of persecution which led to the establishment of important Nonconformist 86 In his History of Protestant Nonconformity in Wales, From its rise in 1633 to the present time (London: 1883), Thomas Rees lists James Owen’s Trugaredd a Barn (i.e., Mercy and Judgment) as “one of the most popular works in the Welsh language in former ages [...],” p. 198. 87 Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, p. 40. 88 Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, p. 48. Philip Jenkins notes that it was only after the Methodist and evangelical revivals that the “ritual landscape” of Wales was destroyed. See “Church, Nation and Language,” p. 272. 89 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 9. Rees, History of Protestant Nonconformity in Wales, pp.198ff. 90 Jenkins, Literature, Religion and Society, p. 54. 91 White, “From Ejectment to Toleration in Wales,” p. 126. 92 White, “From Ejectment to Toleration in Wales,” p. 126.

41

42

Context and Background of James Owen

institutions like the Dissenting academies, generally informal “schools” with only a handful of students, maintained within the homes of pastors. Around 1668, in Llangynwyd, what appears to have been the earliest Welsh Academy was founded by Samuel Jones, an ejected minster who had been educated at Oxford and was highly respected for his learning. James Owen was a pupil of Samuel Jones even prior to Owen’s formal conversion to nonconformity.93

2.3

Moderation—the Legacy of Richard Baxter

James Owen’s father was an Anglican—neither James nor any of his eight siblings would honor their father by remaining in the established Church.94 According to Owen’s brother Charles, James was converted under the preaching of a Dissenting minister early in his life. When faced with the decision of his affiliation, James consciously and carefully came to the studied conclusion not to conform. He made this commitment at a time when persecution was already common and the impending dangers clear. While Owen was growing in his understanding of nonconformity, the most well-known of all Puritans was Richard Baxter who had written prolifically, especially on issues of the identity of Dissent. It is clear from Owen’s writings that Baxter and his moderation were to play a significant role in the shaping of Owen’s thinking. At the same time, Owen was clearly a Reformed Protestant who, like most Nonconformists, believed the theological and political dangers of the papacy were real. John Seed argues convincingly that “Baxter’s autobiographical writings were an ideal place to begin the work of historical retrieval for Dissenters at the close of the seventeenth century.”95 These writings were significant and helped shape Dissenting identity for many, including James Owen and, his younger contemporary, Edmund Calamy. In 1702, Edmund Calamy published an abridged version of Baxter’s unwieldy autobiography which included most importantly chapter 9 which “presented the beginnings of a collective biography of the founding fathers of religious Dissent.”96 James Owen is said to have provided Calamy with the names of Welsh clergy who had been ejected and martyred as a result of the Act of Uniformity of 1662—this event, and Baxter’s interpretation of it, lay the foundation for Owen’s own thinking. In order to understand Owen, Baxter’s brand of moderation and his version of nonconformity are essential.

93 94 95 96

White, “From Ejectment to Toleration in Wales,” p. 132; Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 5. Mark Burden, Biographical Dictionary of Tutors, p. 407. Seed, Dissenting Histories, p. 15. Seed, Dissenting Histories, p. 16.

Moderation—the Legacy of Richard Baxter

In his examination of Baxter’s conflict with antinomians, Tim Cooper offer’s important insight into the character and context of Baxter: “Baxter was irresistibly drawn in to fight for the truth. Like some latter-day Coriolanus he could not help but speak the truth as he saw it [...].” 97 Although he was aware of the ugliness of conflict, there was something within Baxter’s own nature that drew him regularly to controversy. Lamont describes the paradox well: “The pathos in his career is the gap between magnanimous aim and divisive means.”98 Yet Cooper further allows the reader a sense of Baxter’s pastoral heart, a heart that sought the practical outcome of righteousness as its goal. For Baxter, even theological knowledge was intended ultimately for pious practice.99 Such pragmatism certainly played a role in Baxter’s desire for unity within Protestantism in England and his moderation as a means to that end. In a revealing passage from his own autobiography, Baxter writes, “I perceived then that every party beforementioned [Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist], having some truth or good in which it was more eminent than the rest, it was no impossible thing to separate all that from the error and the evil, and that among all truths which they held either in common or in controversy there was no contradiction.” 100 Since unity was the practical end, Baxter almost appears to dismiss the ecclesiological differences as irrelevant. He went further, offering as the only “essentials or fundamentals” of the Christian faith the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, around which Protestants could find their unity.101 As N.H. Keeble writes regarding Baxter’s understanding of the church, “[p]rovided there be this faith, [for Baxter] it matters not what opinions a man holds on any theological or ecclesiastical question, nor even whether he be in error in these incidentals.”102 This theological flexibility and desire for unity was one of the reasons that Baxter was accused at times of an affinity toward Popery, and he was called by some “Bellarmine Junior”.103 According to Paul C.H. Lim, Baxter had two goals in mind as a minister of the Gospel: the saving of the multitude and the converting of the ‘Christian nation’ into a ‘nation of Christians’.104 He had a passion to reform the Church of England, 97 Tim Cooper, Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England: Richard Baxter and Antinomianism (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2001), p. 51. 98 William M. Lamont, Richard Baxter and the Millennium: Protestant Imperialism and the English Revolution (London: Croom Helm, 1979), p. 275. 99 Cooper, Fear and Polemic, p. 52. 100 N. H. Keeble, ed., The Autobiography of Richard Baxter (London: Dent, 1974), p. 135. 101 Keeble, The Autobiography, p. 139. 102 N.H. Keeble, Richard Baxter: Puritan Man of Letters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), p. 24. 103 Lamont, Richard Baxter, p. 240. 104 Paul Chang-Ha Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Context (Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 28–29. See also Lamont, Richard Baxter, especially chapter 4, where Lamont reveals Baxter’s evolving views on a national church.

43

44

Context and Background of James Owen

a passion which was tied to his ecclesiological convictions. However, Baxter, like most Puritans, was not initially open to the idea of separation from the Church.105 Ecclesiologically, Baxter had two aims as well: unity and purity.106 His early determination to preach and catechize came from this desire to purify the visible church in order to prevent separation.107 Preaching and publishing were not sufficient for this end and therefore Baxter desired to use a more active approach: catechizing.108 Baxter was a pastor and had the heart of a faithful shepherd that led to one of the central aims of private catechizing: it allowed the pastor to know the spiritual condition of his flock.109 And while he was concerned with the spiritual well-being of individuals within his parish, he was not overly concerned with what he considered secondary theological issues. Carl Trueman suggests that it was Baxter’s concern over the fragmentation of society that led him, in fact, to take issue with those, such as John Owen, who sought doctrinal precision.110 Baxter was very concerned that scholasticism within Protestantism “leads theology away from the truth.”111 According to Lim, “In catechizing, Baxter allowed for multiplicity of theological perspectives, so long as the fundamentals were not denied.”112 This flexibility attests to his moderation. Baxter’s desire for purity within the church not only led to an emphasis on catechizing, but furthermore, it played a role in Baxter’s doctrinal development, including his understanding of the practice of confirmation. Though Baxter remained a paedo-baptist, his ambition for purity within the church required something more than the simple sacrament.113 Lim acknowledges Baxter’s apparent discomfort with the doctrine of infant baptism in part because he held to the “necessity of profession of true faith before baptism.”114 Baxter resolved this tension by requiring that the parents of the children being brought for baptism have “justifying faith,” and meanwhile he looked for a way to allow the “adolescent members” to “own the covenant with their own faith.”115 He finds this in the doctrine of confirmation, as

105 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 32. 106 Although not within the purview of this study, Baxter’s desire for purity played a significant role in his well-documented struggle against antinomianism. See Cooper, Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England. 107 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 33. 108 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 45. 109 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 46. 110 Carl Trueman, “Richard Baxter on Christian Unity: A Chapter in the Enlightening of English Reformed Orthodoxy,” in Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999), pp. 61ff. 111 Trueman, “Richard Baxter on Christian Unity,” p. 64. 112 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 50. 113 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 56. 114 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 71. 115 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 73.

Moderation—the Legacy of Richard Baxter

Lim summarizes: “Baxter’s desire to revitalize confirmation reveals an important principle in his ecclesiology: the quest for primitive purity.”116 This was one of Baxter’s attempts at seeking purity within the church without separating from it.117 Of course, eventually Baxter did separate from the church, yet he maintained his anti-separatist sentiments by advocating comprehension and a national church throughout his lifetime.118 Lamont’s tracing of the development in Baxter’s thinking with regard to nonconformity’s relationship with the established Church is helpful in revealing that the doctrinal impulse that remains steady throughout the years for Baxter is his emphasis on church discipline. Prior to the Great Ejectment of 1662, when there were still hopes of some rapprochement, Baxter was willing to accept a soft version of Episcopacy. The one requirement that Baxter considered non-negotiable was that pastors had to be able to discipline their flocks. In the words of Lamont: “They must govern; they must have a ‘credible profession of faith and obedience’ from every communicant (the sticking point in his battles over the Lord’s Supper in the 1650s); they must have the power of discipline and excommunication.”119 Purity was of the utmost significance and apparently it was even more important than unity, as Baxter’s willingness to separate later in his life revealed. Baxter understood that there was a difference between a church being a true church and a church being a healthy church—he distinguished between ad esse and bene esse.120 Lim’s summary of Baxter’s understanding of the relationship between the visible and invisible church follows Calvin precisely and is instructive: He [Baxter] argued that since the visible church was the earthly—though imperfect—representation of the invisible church, all those who hoped to enter the invisible must first enter the visible. He asserted that despite the persistence of hypocrites in the visible church, the profession of faith that would qualify one for the invisible church was required.121

He found separatism to be a cowardly position and easier than what could be considered “semi-separatism”122 or ecclesiola in ecclesia (little churches within the Church). It was in this way that Baxter, and others, tried to balance the competing

116 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 80. 117 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 82. 118 Lamont, Richard Baxter, especially chapters 3 and 4. Lamont summarizes the various phases of Baxter’s ecclesiological convictions regarding a national church in chapter 4, including Baxter’s times of equivocation and revision. 119 Lamont, Richard Baxter, p. 214. 120 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 111–112. 121 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 92–93. 122 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, uses this language throughout, see p. 112.

45

46

Context and Background of James Owen

themes of unity and purity. Baxter’s involvement with the Worcestershire Association was his attempt to create “a covenanted community within the parochial bounds [...].”123 After the restoration of Charles II and the ejection of nonconforming ministers, Baxter was an outspoken advocate of what John Ramsbottom calls “partial conformity.”124 He urged his Presbyterian colleagues to participate in the Anglican church while maintaining their conventicles, a practice that had been common among the Puritans even before the Civil War.

2.4

Some Important Biographical Considerations

James Owen was born on November 1, 1654 in Carmarthenshire, Wales, the second son of John Owen, an Anglican royalist. According to Owen’s younger brother Charles, their father suffered greatly during the English Civil War in defense of the King, as part of the King’s military.125 Although his children appeared to have the utmost respect for John, all nine of his children eventually left the established Church in favor of Dissent, as was the case with James. In Owen’s biography, his younger brother Charles recounted that a sermon by an unnamed Dissenting minister early on in life, c. 1668, “had an unusual effect upon his mind: it brought to his view the unseen world, and fill’d him with amazing fear about his future state.”126 It appears that from that time forth, James embarked on a lifetime of self-reflection and self-examination that would guide his educational and vocational interests. Regarding his early education, Owen moved from a local school to Camarthen Castle for further instruction under a Quaker, Mr. James Picton, and later went under the tutelage of David Philips who prepared him for University studies.127 According to his brother, Owen “had an inexhaustible thirst after learning” and was highly thought of by his teachers, including Samuel Jones from whom he learned “the whole course of Philosophy.”128 Mark Burden notes that Samuel Jones became known for his knowledge of ancient languages, languages that Owen himself revealed an aptitude for and presumably learned at this time.129

123 Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, p. 134. 124 John D. Ramsbottom, “Presbyterians and ‘Partial Conformity’ in the Restoration Church of England,” in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 43, no. 2 (April 1992): 256–257. 125 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 2. 126 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 3. 127 Burden, Biographical Dictionary of Tutors, p. 407; Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 2. 128 Owen, Some Account of the Life, pp. 3, 5. 129 Burden, Biographical Dictionary of Tutors, p. 407. Jonathan H. Westaway,“James Owen (1654–1706),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019.

Some Important Biographical Considerations

After some time, Owen moved on to study with his godfather, a minister of the established Church, Rev. James Howell. It was at this time that Owen took the opportunity to study the question of conformity and, although Howell attempted to persuade him to remain within the Church of England, Owen made the conscious and reasoned decision to become a Nonconformist. Owen was well aware of the persecution that he was inviting to himself as a consequence of such a decision, especially in light of the fact that the Dissenters in Wales were very few and “had no men of figure to give ’em the least umbrage of protection.”130 For Owen this was a matter of conscience: “The only thing therefore which determin’d his judgment was, their close adherence to that way, which upon an impartial disquisition, he thought most agreeable to the divine will reveal’d in the inspired canon [...]. That which gave the most peculiar satisfaction to his thoughts was that no opposition was made against ’em from Scripture or solid reason.”131 His trust in the scripture as final authority would remain true for the rest of his life, as we will see below. As the Nonconformists noted his considerable gifts for ministry, he began to preach at Dissenting gatherings, serving as an assistant to the Rev. Stephen Hughes in Swansea. Hughes was described by Charles Owen as “a gentleman of a true apostolical spirit, great moderation, and pious zeal to do good to souls.”132 Hughes noted Owen’s piety and many gifts, both as a young scholar and a preacher. It was with apprehension that he allowed Owen to leave to accept an invitation from Henry Maurice to move to North Wales, after Owen had been the target of the Ecclesiastical court due to his nonconformity. Owen would settle in Bodfel for only nine months, as persecution once again found him and forced him to move on to Bronclydwr in Merionethshire, where he assisted Dissenting minister Hugh Owen. Soon after this move, Owen replaced the late Rowland Nivet, Dissenting minister at Oswestry. After a period of probation, Owen was set apart for ministry in October of 1677.133 He cared deeply for his native Wales but faced significant mistreatment for his work there. The biography written by his brother offers accounts of various harassments and even imprisonment that Owen faced because of his desire to preach around Wales.134 In November of 1679, Owen married Sarah George with whom he had seven children, of which all but two died young. Sarah herself died in January of 1692 and Owen remarried the following year to Jane, the widow of Alderman Edwards of Oswestry. In August of 1699, Jane too died. A year later, August of 1700, Owen married again, this time to Elizabeth Hough of Chester. According to Charles, “[s]o 130 131 132 133 134

Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 6. Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 7. Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 9. Owen, Some Account of the Life, pp. 13–14; Burden, Biographical Dictionary of Tutors, p. 408. Owen, Some Account of the Life, pp. 14–21.

47

48

Context and Background of James Owen

remarkable was the harmony of their minds, that their wills might be justly stil’d one and the same: this made him often say, that they were not only one flesh, but one spirit.”135 According to his brother’s account, Owen was a faithful family man and a gentle father whose rebukes, “like those of providence, were certain instances of fatherly love.”136 Owen’s public ministry and involvement in the defense of moderate nonconformity began as early as 1681 when he was challenged to a public debate on the topic of non-diocesan ordination by Bishop William Lloyd of St. Asaph. In the 1690s he established a Dissenting academy at Oswestry and continued teaching at another in Shrewsbury upon moving there in 1700. As will be examined in the following chapters, Owen entered into a number of published controversies and wrote numerous books and pamphlets defending his moderate convictions. On April 8, 1706, Owen died after battling gallstones for 30 years. His funeral sermon was preached and later published by his dear friend and fellow moderate Nonconformist, Matthew Henry.137 Owen was a man of learning and faith who contributed to the intellectual and spiritual life of nonconformity in the formative years following Toleration.

135 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 86. 136 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 85. 137 Burden, Biographical Dictionary of Tutors, p. 413.

3.

A Circle of Moderate Friends

In this chapter we examine the circle of moderate Nonconformist ministers that surrounded James Owen during his lifetime of ministry and their particular ecclesiological convictions, revealing a brand of nonconformity that sought a nuanced unity with the Church of England. An examination of their works and influences will serve as a backdrop for examining Owen’s articulation of moderation and Dissent in his various published controversial works. It is helpful to understand that Owen was writing, at times, simultaneously with his colleagues, whose works reveal a significant amount of overlap with his. Whether they were intentional in this propagation of their common moderate ecclesiological convictions is yet to be uncovered. In her 2015 monograph, The Textual Culture of English Protestant Dissent 1720–1800, Tessa Whitehouse carefully traces the various connections and interconnections between a group of influential eighteenth-century Dissenters, which she labels “the Watts-Doddridge Circle.”1 She noted that this network of men who were involved in one way or another with Dissenting academies “identified themselves as participants in the same endeavours,” and created texts that “acted both as memorials and celebrations of a moderate, learned Dissenting tradition and as a spur and guide to future generations.”2 She proceeds to lay out a convincing argument by analyzing letters, collected works, lectures, and their transmission and use, revealing the extensive influence of Isaac Watts and Philip Doddridge. Her opening chapter is dedicated to the “role of friendship” and unpacks a number of key relationships within the “Watts-Doddridge Circle.” This circle of friends had a broad influence and carried the torch for moderate nonconformity through the end of eighteenth century. The circle of friends to which James Owen belonged preceded the Watts-Doddridge Circle by more than a generation and might be considered the circle from which the torch was passed. Although this chapter, having more modest aims, does not presume to achieve the same level of analysis as Whitehouse and does not attempt to uncover epistolary literature that may be extant to connect the central figures, it will reveal James Owen’s significant relationships and a similarity of ideas and ideals among his circle of friends, who comprised an even earlier version of learned Dissenting moderation than those examined by Whitehouse. Writing toward the end of the seventeenth

1 Tessa Whitehouse, The Textual Culture of English Protestant Dissent 1720–1800 (Oxford University Press, 2015), throughout. 2 Whitehouse, The Textual Culture, p. 2.

50

A Circle of Moderate Friends

century and early on in the eighteenth century, these nonconforming men, among whom Owen found himself, were defenders of moderation and advocates of what might be called an English Protestant ecumenical ecclesiology.3 Martin Sutherland, in his Peace, Toleration and Decay: The Ecclesiology of Later Stuart Dissent, helpfully traces both conformist and Nonconformist ecclesiologies in the seventeenth century. In his opening chapter, he notes that although Presbyterians, like Independents, emphasized the invisible church, their system “preserved a significant role for the visible church,” including the persuasion that ordinarily salvation was not possible outside of the visible church.4 The Independents, on the other hand, stressed “godliness” and “proscribed any institutional authority of the wider church.”5 In the Restoration period, it was moderate Presbyterians, like Richard Baxter, who had been in support of comprehension, the broadening of the boundaries of the national church in order to encompass a greater number of doctrinally orthodox denominations. After the Act of Toleration of 1689, although movements toward comprehension declined, the ecclesiological undergirding of their position remained more or less consistent. Even if institutional unity could not be achieved, those of moderate Dissent desired some opportunity for communion with those in the Church of England. According to Paul Lim, “the practice of partial conformity [...] demonstrates that the relationship between Churchmen and Dissenters was not always polarized, at least not when the ‘partial conformity’ of ‘Presbyterians’ such as Baxter, Philip Henry, and Oliver Heywood is taken into consideration.”6 Though in favor of some level of separation, these thinkers considered unity with the Church of England desirable. In the works examined below, what Sutherland deems the Presbyterian understanding that “the importance of the visible church thus flowed from its relation to the invisible,”7 is made evident with each author emphasizing internal unity leading to visible and external manifestations, in many cases by virtue of the practice of occasional conformity (to be examined in chapter 6). In preparing to understand the full import of the debate regarding the legitimacy of Dissent and occasional conformity, the intellectual and theological context in which Owen lived is significant. In what follows, we will survey some of the

3 Although the language “ecumenical” is anachronistic, it captures the desire for unity found within these Dissenting ministers. To be more precise, theirs was a Protestant ecumenical ecclesiology and sought unity among all those of the Reformed faith. 4 Martin Sutherland, Peace, Toleration and Decay: The Ecclesiology of Later Stuart Dissent (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2003), p. 27. 5 Sutherland, Peace, Toleration and Decay, pp. 27–28. 6 Lim, Paul C.H., In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Context (Leiden: Brill, 2004), p. 146. 7 Sutherland, Peace, Toleration and Decay, p. 27.

A Variety of Close Connections

important figures in Owen’s life who surrounded him as he both developed his ecclesiological understanding and codified it in a series of published controversies. In later chapters we will examine Owen’s own work and underscore correspondences, but below our aim is to understand the intellectual and ecclesiastical milieu in which Owen functioned as an heir of moderate nonconformity.

3.1

A Variety of Close Connections

Around 1680, James Owen moved to Oswestry, where he would serve as minister for two decades. It was during this time, according to his brother Charles, that he entered into “an intimate acquaintance with the Reverend Mr. Philip Henry of Broad Oak, who greatly valu’d him, and was valu’d by him [...].”8 A theological and ministerial kinship rapidly developed between James Owen and Philip Henry, lasting until Henry died in 1696. It is important to note here that Philip Henry himself was connected to Richard Baxter and shared much of Baxter’s desire for catholicity. From what we can gather from a variety of accounts, Henry served as an elder brother and even mentor to Owen. Charles asserts that Owen would consult with Henry “on all occasions as a father and friend [...].” He goes on to expound on this, indicating that Henry was influential in Owen’s personal growth, “particularly by confirming him in those principles of moderation which Mr. Henry was eminent for, and Mr. Owen like him.”9 In 1681 in Oswestry, when called upon to enter into a debate on the issue of ordination with Bishop William Lloyd of St. Asaph, Owen invited Henry, along with Mr. Jonathan Roberts, to join him in defense of non-Diocesan ordination. Owen was able to observe both the content and approach of a well-respected nonconforming minister in Henry. Charles describes Henry as “a gentleman of excessive modesty” and characterizes his participation in the debate as follows: “He manag’d his part with a prudent and primitive temper, with such mildness and forcible reasons, as recommended him to the high esteem of my Lord the Bishop, and the company.”10 This moderate spirit is confirmed by the testimony of the Bishop himself, in a letter he wrote to Henry two days after the debate: “I was much pleased with the good temper I found in you at the conference at Oswestry,” later inviting him to further discussion and interaction at Wrexham. The Bishop, known for his own personal

8 Owen, Charles, Some Account of the Life and Writings of the late Pious and Learned James Owen (London: 1709), p. 22. Note: seventeenth-century contractions and spelling will be retained throughout the book. 9 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 22. 10 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 30.

51

52

A Circle of Moderate Friends

moderation, saw in Henry a like-mindedness.11 As a young Dissenting minister, Owen was privileged to watch closely as an elder minister, one who had been ejected from his parish by the Act of Uniformity of 1662, remained composed, gracious, and firm in his defense of nonconformity. Years later, in the summer of 1696, on the occasion of Philip Henry’s death, Owen was asked to preach the Lord’s Day message in Broad Oak which took place the day after the funeral service, in which Matthew Henry, Philip’s son, and Francis Tallents, another of this circle, both preached as well. Owen’s message (and friendship) was sufficiently meaningful for Matthew Henry, Philip’s son, to include a summary of it in his biographical work about his late father, calling it “a most excellent sermon in the morning, agreeable to that sad occasion, upon that pathetical farewell which Elisha gave to Elijah, 2 Kings ii. 12.”12 Matthew Henry understood how close his father and James Owen had been and the loss Owen himself experienced at the time. As is already evident, Owen’s connection to the Henry family was not limited to his friendship with Philip. Matthew Henry, was much closer in age to Owen and was a cherished friend and confidant to Owen. The two of them shared both a moderation in their nonconformity and a deep love for the scriptures and orthodoxy. According to J.B. Williams, Matthew Henry’s biographer, both James Owen and Francis Tallents were “friends” of Matthew Henry from whom he sought counsel prior to his ordination in 1686.13 Henry described Owen as, “A friend, with whom, I have had an intimate acquaintance about 7 or 8 and twenty years, with whom I have many a time taken sweet counsel, and by whose converse and correspondence, I either have been edified, or might have been [...].”14 He speaks with great affection of Owen as one who was worth imitating and one who had been influential in his own life. He even went so far as to compare his personal feeling of sorrow upon the occasion of Owen’s death to the heart of David at the death of Jonathan.15 The Henrys had a long-lasting friendship with Richard Baxter. J.B. Williams, when discussing Matthew Henry’s prison visit to Baxter in 1685, refers to Baxter as Matthew Henry’s “father’s ancient and beloved friend.”16 Matthew Henry had the opportunity to share his father’s love and support for Baxter by visiting him in prison in London while Baxter awaited trial. In his letter home to his father, Philip,

11 Matthew Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, A.M., ed J.B. Williams (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), p. 155. 12 Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, p. 228. 13 J.B. Williams, The Life of Matthew Henry (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), p. 34. 14 Matthew Henry, A Sermon Preach’d at the Funeral of the Reverend Mr. James Owen (London: 1706), p. 49. 15 Henry, A Sermon Preach’d, p. 49. 16 Williams, The Life of Matthew Henry, p. 21.

A Variety of Close Connections

after the visit, Matthew recalls the godly counsel offered by this elder in the faith: “He gave us good counsel to prepare for trials, and said the best preparation for them was a life of faith, and a constant course of self-denial.”17 In addition to the Henry family relationship with Baxter and Francis Tallents, there is also evidence of mutual respect and collegiality between Matthew Henry and Edmund Calamy, another moderate Nonconformist with significant ties to James Owen (see below).18 The desire for peace and unity was essential to those in this circle of associates. On the walls of a meeting-house in Shrewsbury opened in 1691 in which he would serve as a minister, Francis Tallents had written, “That it was built not for a faction or a party, but for promoting repentance and faith, in communion with all that love our Lord Jesus Christ, in sincerity.”19 This emphasis on “communion with all” reveals Tallents’ underlying ecclesiology and sheds light on his ministerial intentions. According to C.D. Gilbert, “Francis Tallents was a gifted teacher who could have followed an academic career. Instead he chose to become a minister in Shrewsbury. He could in 1662 have accepted reordination and retained his £330 a year, or gone on to preferment in the Church of England. Instead he chose the hazardous life of an ejected minister.”20 His convictions led him not toward comfort but rather toward a lifetime of service under pressing circumstances. At times he was accused of being in collusion with Jesuits, while another time he was arrested under suspicion of being involved in Monmouth’s rebellion.21 Tallents was a lifelong friend of Philip Henry and, as noted above, was asked to preach Henry’s funeral sermon. From 1700 until the time of his death in 1706, James Owen served alongside Tallents as co-pastors in Shrewsbury. Although questions remain as to the level of influence Tallents had on Owen (if any), what is clear is their partnership in ministry at Shrewsbury, their engagement in similar controversies (see below), and their connection to many of the same moderate Nonconformists, including the Henrys and Edmund Calamy. They even shared a debate opponent in the person of Samuel Grascome who responded to Tallents’ work in a pamphlet he titled “Moderation in Fashion (1705), thereby drawing attention to the similarities between the arguments of Tallents and Owen.”22

17 Williams, The Life of Matthew Henry, p. 22. 18 Williams, The Life of Matthew Henry, pp. 102ff. 19 C.D. Gilbert, “Tallents, Francis (1619–1708),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http:// www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019. 20 Gilbert, “Tallents, Francis (1619–1708).” 21 Gilbert, “Tallents, Francis (1619–1708).” 22 Mark Burden, A Biographical Dictionary of Tutors at the Dissenters’ Private Academies, 1660–1729 (London: Dr. Williams’s Centre for Dissenting Studies, 2013), p. 484. Owen’s famous work was entitled Moderation a Virtue (1703).

53

54

A Circle of Moderate Friends

Edmund Calamy, the son and grandson of ministers ejected from the Anglican Church in 1662 after the Act of Uniformity took effect, came to be a staunch defender of Dissent, well-known for his prolific work as a historian of nonconformity. Calamy was born in 1671 and began instruction for ministry early on.23 After a number of years of training in various fields of learning, Calamy met Richard Baxter for the first time in 1691. Apparently impacted by his interaction with Baxter, Calamy soon after set out to study the “arguments for and against conformity in order to determine his own position.”24 A decade later, Calamy published a biography on Baxter, Abridgment of Baxter’s Narrative, which included the stories of other Nonconformist ministers and the persecution they endured. He had made up his mind regarding his position on the issues and became a Presbyterian minister and a “champion of nonconformity.”25 Calamy not only had connections to Baxter, but also to other eminent Nonconformist ministers such as Thomas Reynolds, Daniel Williams, and John Howe (whose memoirs he wrote) and engaged in many controversies in defense of moderate nonconformity. Calamy and Owen maintained mutual friends in Daniel Williams and Matthew Henry, wrote during the same period in defense of nonconformity, and collaborated as Owen provided Calamy with the accounts of the Welsh ministers ejected in 1662 which were included in Calamy’s Account.26 According to James Spivey, Calamy was ordained in June of 1694 during the first public Nonconformist ordination since the Act of Uniformity of 1662. Although tension between Anglicans and Dissent remained high, Spivey suggests that Owen’s A Plea for Scripture Ordination (1694) was influential in convincing Calamy to seek public, non-Diocesan ordination.27

3.2

Elements of Moderation

Although moderation was a term used by all sides (as will be seen in Chapter 6), within the circle of Owen’s friends, it had a nuanced meaning. It included a particular approach to interactions within Protestant circles and addressed in particular doctrinal, specifically ecclesiological, convictions. The elements of their moderation may be categorized as follows: (1) charity in their approach even toward

23 David L. Wykes, “Calamy, Edmund (1671–1732),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http:// www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019. 24 Wykes, “Calamy, Edmund.” 25 Wykes, “Calamy, Edmund.” 26 Jonathan H. Westaway, “Owen, James (1654–1706),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019. 27 James Travis Spivey, Jr., “Middle Way Men, Edmund Calamy, and the Crises of Moderate Nonconformity (1688–1732)” (PhD diss, University of Oxford, 1986), pp. 135, 142.

Elements of Moderation

those they oppose; (2) unity defined by the essentials rather than secondary issues; (3) the argument that separation is not schismatic; and (4) the sole Lordship of Christ over conscience. It was this “sober” or “moderate” ecclesiology that set these men apart and brought them together. 3.2.1 Charity As indicated earlier, Philip Henry’s moderation is well-known. In the words of Mathew Henry: “[Philip’s] moderation in his nonconformity was very exemplary and eminent, and had a great influence upon many, to keep them from running into an uncharitable and schismatical separation [...].”28 Schism was adamantly repudiated by this circle of moderates and was fundamentally tied to the lack of charity. J.B. Williams remarks concerning Matthew’s own disposition toward Anglicans that: “The esteem Mr. Henry cherished for all pious conformists, was very cordial and very exemplary; he loved them as brethren in Christ Jesus.”29 Although Matthew did not conform to the Church of England, it is evident that he considered Anglicans brethren and interacted with them with a level of cordiality. James Spivey, writing about Edmund Calamy states: “His principles of moderation were to weigh subjects maturely on Scripture grounds, to avoid passions which could widen the rift between Protestants, and to speak truth in love [...]. It meant treating one’s neighbours mildly and humanely, yielding in matters of ‘lesser consideration’ [...].”30 Here, a concise definition of charity takes shape: a balanced approach and the soberminded weighing of the various sides of the issue. The discernment to know which issues were of greater importance and which were of “lesser consideration” was an essential aspect of this moderation and was the foundation for speaking truth in love. Matthew Henry preached a sermon at the funeral of James Owen in 1706, in which he revealed what nurtured deep fellowship between the two men and the common passion they shared: That he was a man of true Catholick Charity; Tho’ no man was clearer in his own Judgment, better understood the Grounds on which he went, nor was better able to give an account of the hope that was in him with meekness and fear, yet he maintain’d an extensive charity for those, from whom he differ’d, and a temper of mind towards them that was truly

28 Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, p. 100. 29 Williams, The Life of Matthew Henry, p. 182. 30 Spivey, “Middle Way Men,” p. 164.

55

56

A Circle of Moderate Friends

Christian, and became a follower of the Prince of Peace, and a Servant of the God of Love.31

Alluding to Owen’s prominent work on the topic of moderation, Henry further elaborated, “As he wrote, he thought and liv’d: MODERATION was his VIRTUE, it was STILL his virtue; and it is not long, since he took an effectual course to let it be known unto all men, as if he had foreseen that the Lord was at hand.”32 Henry there made reference to the language of Paul’s letter to the Philippians 4:5, “Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand (KJV).” In the discussion regarding this oft-quoted verse in his whole Bible commentary, Henry writes regarding the Greek word translated “moderation” that it “signifies a good disposition towards other men; and this moderation is explained, Rom. 14.”33 The good disposition might be described as “extensive charity for those, from whom he differ’d,” as modeled by Owen. The emphasis was on how one treated those who differed from his views. In his work on moderation, Francis Tallents also referred to Romans 14 and Paul’s condemnation there of “this despising and judging one another,” and noted that “he [the Apostle Paul] exhorts them to bear with one another, and to follow the things that make for peace and edification [...].”34 The conviction to approach their conforming brethren with charity was scriptural and therefore compelling for these men. Although it was not always effectively implemented, such charity was primary for these moderates. There was a sense of duty to love other Protestants, regardless of whether or not there was full agreement with them. In many respects, these Dissenting moderates shared this charitable approach with those associated with the Low-Church faction of the Church of England. As moderate Nonconformists might be defined by their treatment of the Church of England, Rebecca Louise Warner argues that treating Dissent “with moderation was a crucial factor in defining a low churchman.”35 In fact, not only did moderates of nonconformity share an emphasis on charity with their Low-Church conforming brethren, they shared their anti-Rome sentiment as well. This sense of unity was restricted to Protestants and

31 Henry, A Sermon Preach’d, p. 57. 32 Henry, A Sermon preach’d, p. 57. 33 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendriksen, 1991), p. 2328. Note: it is known that, while alive, Matthew Henry was able to publish his commentary through the book of Acts. After his death, a group of his friends used his personal notes to complete the commentary. 34 Francis Tallents, A Short History of Schism; for the promoting of Christian Moderation, and the Communion of Saints (London: 1705), p. 29. 35 Rebecca Louise Warner, “Early Eighteenth Century Low Churchmanship: The Glorious Revolution to the Bangorian Controversy” (Ph.d. diss., Univrsity of Reading, 1999), p. 52.

Elements of Moderation

there was clear opposition to “popery” in both the members of the Owen’s circle of moderates and Low Churchmen. 3.2.2 Unity in Doctrine In his criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, Philip Henry’s main indictment was what Matthew Henry described as “their monopolizing of the church.”36 Philip thought that Rome’s condemnation of all who were “not in [agreement] with their interests” was contrary to the very heart of the Gospel. Matthew Henry recalled this about his father, “He sometimes said,—I am too much a catholick to be a Roman Catholick.”37 This ecclesiological perspective, an ecumenical perspective of sorts, undoubtedly undergirded his moderation. Much like Richard Baxter, a friend and colleague, Henry desired unity and peace for Christ’s church, without imposing upon one another requirements beyond that which Christ Himself owned.38 Much like his father, Matthew Henry too had what may be labeled an English Protestant ecumenical ecclesiology, at least insofar as he desired and actively pursued unity for Christ’s (Protestant) church. He wrote, “Those I call Christians, not who are of this or that party, but who call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord: those, whatever dividing name they are known by, who live soberly, righteously, and godly in this world.”39 Both Henrys were advocates for unity in the church and had a deep concern with the schismatic spirit they observed among both Anglicans and Dissenters. This desire for unity was intrinsic to the moderation of Owen’s circle of thinkers, perhaps even defining. The question, of course, had to do with what that unity required. As one investigates more deeply the works of these thinkers, it becomes clearer that this circle of moderate Nonconformists believed in unity that was grounded on doctrine, more specifically, foundational doctrine. The essence of the church’s unity, as articulated concisely by Tallents, is not a visible location nor the connection to an individual (e.g., a bishop), but rather truth and the proper attitude brought about by one’s awareness of this truth. Tallents explained that the unity of the church is “built on the large and sure foundations of faith and love; that all who agree in these are true members of it [...].”40 Faith had content to which all must agree, but love insisted that this agreement be in the essentials rather than in secondary matters. The unity of the Protestant church was not only desirable, it was part of the very nature of

36 Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, p. 244. 37 Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, p. 244. 38 Cf. Paul C.H. Lim’s In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Context (Leiden: Brill, 2004), regarding Baxter’s ecclesiology. 39 Williams, The Life of Matthew Henry, p. 182. 40 Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 23.

57

58

A Circle of Moderate Friends

Christ’s church. But unity did not mean uniformity. The aim of the church universal, in the words of Calamy, “is not to bring men to an exact agreement and uniformity in all particulars; but to diffuse among us a noble spirit of love, and inspire us with such moderation and condescension, as that notwithstanding a diversity of sentiments and practice, we may yet carry it as brethren, and keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.”41 Matthew Henry applauded in James Owen a man who was able to distinguish between the essentials and the non-essentials, the “weighty and uncontested” versus the “matters of doubtful disputation.”42 With regard to Owen’s intentional, reasoned moderation, Henry simply said, “This is the virtue, by which the Unity of the Spirit is kept in the Bond of peace, notwithstanding a diversity of opinion, and practice accordingly: The triumphs of this virtue over bigotry on all sides, will contribute abundantly to the peace of Zion’s walls, and the prosperity of all her palaces.”43 Peace within the broader community of Protestant believers in England was exactly what this desire for unity aimed for. Though these men were well equipped and firm in their theological persuasions, it was precisely their theological and ecclesiological conviction regarding unity for Christ’s church that led them to earnestly pursue this bond of peace among Protestants. This Protestant ecumenical ecclesiology remained a dominant theme for each of these ministers. Advocating unity by virtue of charity and the toleration of differences in nonessentials, Calamy quoted Dr. Henry More affirmingly, who wrote, “A mutual agreement in bearing with one anothers dissents in the non-fundamentals of religion, is really a greater ornament of Christianity, than the most exact uniformity imaginable: It being an eminent exercise of charity, the flower of all Christian graces; and the best way at the long run to make the Church as uniform as can justly be desir’d.”44 Calamy contended that it was liberty in non-essentials that would eventually bring with it a greater, more lasting unity. Unity in the fundamentals would allow for a charity in the secondary concerns. He asserted, “When things neither necessary in themselves, nor rendered expedient by circumstances, are barely recommended by autority [sic], but left at liberty, a peaceable temper will be inclin’d to study compliance, if the harm appear not greater than the good that will follow [...].”45 When people are not coerced into conformity, they will “be inclin’d” to careful consideration of the commended practice. Such liberty in secondary matters, according to these thinkers, promotes both charity and unity.46

41 42 43 44 45 46

Edmund Calamy, A Defence of Moderate Non-conformity Part II (London: 1704), p. 12. Henry, A Sermon Preach’d, p. 57. Henry, A Sermon Preach’d, p. 58. Calamy, A Defence, p. 13. Calamy, A Defence, p. 76. This position held in favor of liberty and against coercion was in direct contrast to what Mark Goldie observes within Anglicanism in his “The Theory of Religious Intolerance in Restoration England,”

Elements of Moderation

Convinced that their moderation, if adopted by the majority, would lead to unity, these men attempted to identify the schismatic thinking of their opponents. For example, in the works of the prominent Anglican thinker and Bishop of London, Dr. Thomas Sherlock, Francis Tallents discovered an underlying affinity to the Romanist perspective: those who do not communicate with the Church established by law are guilty of schism. Tallents referred to Sherlock’s assertion about Nonconformists: “their condition, whatever their other pretences of piety be, is as dangerous as the condition of moral heathens and papists [...].” This perspective put Dissenters outside of both the visible and invisible church and made them liable to damnation.47 In another work, Tallents rejected what he called a “new and bold assertion that there can be no church, or salvation, in an ordinary way, without a canonical bishop,” which was the view taken by Samuel Grascome.48 This heavy emphasis on the visible church drew out Tallents’ piercing critique. In response and as an alternative, Tallents laid out the moderate Nonconformist description of unity as prayed for by Christ in his High Priestly prayer (John 17): And for certain his prayer was heard; but it is not heard, if the oneness of his church lie in being of one opinion or way in lesser things. Therefore they who separate from a true church on the account only of lesser matters do not separate from the whole Catholic Church, because they separate not from it in the main things where-in the being and unity of the church lies, but are therein fully one with it.49

Tallents appealed to the difference between greater and lesser matters, asserting that unity is in the “main things”, citing even the support of prominent Church of England men, Richard Hooker and William Stillingfleet, in this assessment.50 According to Tallents, the assertion made by opponents of nonconformity that those who are separated from the Church of England are “in a state of damnation” is destructive of Christian love itself “and is therefore false.”51 He granted that similar accusations could be found on both sides of the aisle and such thinking promoted divisions and “irreconcilable feuds amongst many, who may and ought to love one

47 48 49 50 51

in From Persecution to Toleration: The Glorious Revolution and Religion in England ed. Ole Peter Grell, Jonathan I. Israel, and Nicholas Tyacke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 331–368. Goldie traces the roots of a positive view of “civil coercion” to Augustine. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, pp. 15–16. Francis Tallents, Some Few Considerations upon Mr. S.G’s large Answer to the short history of Schism (London: 1706), title page. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 22. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 22; here Tallents shows his ecumenical hand again calling Hooker, “our Hooker,” embracing a common heritage with the Anglicans. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 24.

59

60

A Circle of Moderate Friends

another unfeignedly, and with a pure heart fervently, as parts of the same body of Jesus Christ their Lord.”52 Tallents explicitly criticized the Anglican understanding of the church noting that in the context of Romans 14 and non-essentials, Paul “impos’d no laws upon them in those things.”53 Much like Matthew Henry in his earlier work, A Brief Enquiry into the true Nature of Schism (1690), Tallents located Christian unity within Christian love, moving questions of visibility and location to the periphery. Although external communion is important, it is not essential to one’s membership within the communion of saints (or invisible church): “For many may be in the communion of saints, who do not hold external communion one with another, tho they do ill in not doing so.”54 Tallents did not believe that the lack of visible unity was, in general, a good thing, nevertheless he believed that at times it was necessary. With regard to unity, Calamy appealed to the example of the nonconforming forebears: “’Tis plain to all, that take the pains to read their papers, that they were men of moderation: and so fearful of the mischiefs that would attend fresh divisions, that they were full of zeal in pursuit of healing methods.”55 This same zeal for unity was a mark of moderation and a common thread running through the circle of friends and influences surrounding Calamy and Owen. Schism, they believed, was not caused by those who desired to be free to worship according to their consciences, but by those who would impose their manmade rituals: The excluding persons the communion of the church by unwarrantable impositions, is so far from being a fence against disorder, that it is it self a very great disorder, and the bane of charity: And they that suffer under such an exclusion, have the satisfaction of a court and judge to appeal to above, where they may upon good grounds hope to be acquitted, tho’ they are here condemned. And if they but act in the integrity of their hearts, they need not fear, but that will another day redound to their honour, which is now charg’d upon them as their weakness.56

This “court and judge to appeal to above” was a reminder to Nonconformists that their belonging to the Body of Christ is not dependent on earthly and visible human authorities, but rather on the King of the Kingdom himself. Calamy thereby affirmed

52 Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 24. 53 Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 29. 54 Tallents, A Short History of Schism, pp. 24–25; it is interesting that Tallents here does not deny the significance of external communion, but rather denies that it is essential, once again allowing the invisible priority over the visible. 55 Calamy, A Defence, p. 45. 56 Calamy, A Defence, p. 53.

Elements of Moderation

key components of moderation, the invisible nature of the church and the centrality of both charity and liberty. Matthew Henry was critical of both conformity and nonconformity, for their “laying a greater stress upon small matters of difference than they will bear, and widening the breach about them.”57 Henry went further to clarify his concern: “As on the one hand, to censure all prayers by a form, or by this form in particular, as superstition, will-worship, formality, and the like: on the other hand, to censure all extempore praying as babbling, canting, froth and noise, as if God had not accepted his own people in the one as well as in the other.”58 Henry is emphatic in his affirmation that the Church of England is a true church, as are the gatherings of Nonconformists. This affirmation played a foundational role in the moderate understanding of how the two parties were to interact. In describing and affirming sober, by which he means moderate, Dissent, Tallents addressed several significant ecclesiastical commitments that characterized these moderate Nonconformists: They own Scripture Bishops, and such as Cyprian and those in his time; they order things in their own Flocks, as being to give an account to God; they hold a loving Communion one with another, and with those that differ from them, in particular with the Episcopal Church of England, by a hearty internal Communion, and an outward one also sometimes, and with the whole Catholick Church. They are for Peace, when many are for War.59

This loving and, sometimes outward, communion with the Church of England to which Tallents refers is labeled occasional conformity. And though many on both sides of the aisle were opposed to this practice of Dissenters partaking in the Lord’s Supper at an Anglican service one or more times a year, Owen’s circle of moderates believed it was a natural outflow of their ecclesiological convictions. Tallents articulated how the moderates viewed the practice of occasional conformity: it was “a special means to prevent, remove, or greatly lessen the Sin of Schism, and to promote that which is so desirable, Catholick Communion.”60 For Tallents, occasional conformity was not only lawful, he saw it as a “duty and an excellent one.”61 Occasional conformity acted as a sort of antidote to schism: “For if schism lie in separating, and not joining with others, then joining with them sometimes,

57 Matthew Henry, A Brief Enquiry Into the true Nature of Schism: Or a Persuasive to Christian Love and Charity (London: 1690), p. 17. 58 Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 17. 59 Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 101. 60 Tallents, A Short History of Schism, pp. 103–104. 61 Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 107.

61

62

A Circle of Moderate Friends

shews we do not separate from them.”62 In a similar appeal, Calamy asked a series of rhetorical questions to highlight the moderate conformist’s intention in occasional conformity: But why may not I shew my peaceable disposition in communicating occasionally, with those, a total compliance with whose impositions I judge unlawful, without being chargeable with hypocrisie? My aim is visible; I don’t seek to conceal it; nor is there any need I should: I would shew my charity to them, tho’ I dare not own their autority [sic], or encourage their encroachments. Why should I for this be evil spoken of? Did I think the things requir’d sinful as to the matter of them, I should not dare to yield to any communion in them: But when I only think them in themselves inexpedient, sinfully impos’d, and therefore unwarrantably so comply’d with, as would be to the prejudice of a farther Reformation, which all ought earnestly to desire and aim at in their several places, in a regular and peaceable way; why may I not shew my charity to them, by giving them sometimes my company?63

Calamy, along with the others, wanted to affirm that the Church of England was a true church. And because it is a true church, it was the duty of love that compelled them toward a visible display of unity. Occasional conformity was that visible display. Tallents added to this practice some historical perspective making note of the fact that in the early days of the Restoration there were many Nonconformists who sought comprehension and unity. Furthermore, even under the Act of Toleration, many Dissenters intentionally refused to have their services at the normal hours but rather accommodated their schedules to allow for their people to attend both parish services as well as their Nonconformist gatherings.64 Occasional Conformity, for Tallents, revealed the very opposite of a schismatic heart conviction: [...] sometimes the main reason why they go to worship God with them, is to shew they hold Communion with them; that tho there be many things amiss, against which they bear a real testimony by their Nonconformity, yet they go to them to shew to the World they separate not from them, and the better to maintain that Spiritual Love, which ought to be among the Members of the Churches of Christ.65

62 63 64 65

Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 117. Calamy, A Defence, p. 82. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 106. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 108.

Elements of Moderation

In other words, according to Tallents, this was a reasoned and intentional decision to occasionally conform grounded in a particular ecclesiological perspective: though separate, Dissenters and members of the Church of England are in fact members of the one Body of Christ. He insisted, against the accusations of many, that the Dissenters who practiced occasional conformity were not lukewarm but zealous for the things of God. Their consciences would not permit either continual conformity nor complete separation and, therefore, were bound to this practice as one aspect of their worship of God.66 The difficulty of maintaining this position amidst opposition was additional evidence of their zeal and conviction. He further argued that Dissenters display a greater moderation and charity, as they willingly communicate with Anglicans, even though they are convinced it is the Anglicans who are schismatic themselves.67 3.2.3 Separation without Schism Occasional conformity was a reasoned theological position for these moderate Nonconformists, but it implied, at least, occasional separation. The attacks against Dissent included the accusation of schism, an indictment that they took seriously. Calamy highlights the seriousness of this denunciation asserting that “among other charges that were bro’t against them, none made more noise than that of schism.” He added that the Dissenters were “cry’d out upon from press and pulpit as dangerous schismaticks” which brought upon them a significant level of popular reproach.68 It was in 1690, only one year after the Act of Toleration had come into effect, Matthew Henry wrote his first published work, anonymously at the time, to which this long title was given: A brief enquiry into the true nature of schism, or a persuasive to Christian love and charity humbly submitted to better judgments.69 This short work in some ways was a guide to practical ecclesiology and laid the foundation for unity among Anglicans and Dissenters—a unity that, for moderate Dissent, need not include regularly worshipping together in the same location. His subtitle, “A Persuasive to Christian Love and Charity,” revealed the concern that led to this work and his appeal for Christian communion. Although the Act of 1689 allowed for certain liberties, Nonconformists were still not equal before the law. Douglas Lacey highlighted the correspondence between Philip and Matthew Henry after the Act was signed into law: “‘When you write to any of our lawmakers,’ Philip Henry wrote his son Matthew after passage of 66 Tallents, A Short History of Schism, pp. 111–112. 67 Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 120. 68 Edmund Calamy, An Abridgement of Mr. Baxter’s History of His Life and Times (London: 1702), p. 554. 69 Henry, A Brief Enquiry, title page.

63

64

A Circle of Moderate Friends

the Toleration Act, ‘acknowledge their kindness and pains in procuring it with all thankfulness, but until the sacramental test be taken off,’ he pointedly added, ‘our business is not done.’”70 In defense, then, of the reputation and rights of nonconformity, many took up their pens to write, including, as we’ve seen, members of this circle of moderates. Matthew Henry’s work predates Owen’s initial defense of nonconformity (A Plea for Scripture Ordination, 1694) by nearly four years. With caution and care (though youthful naiveté as well), Matthew Henry approached the topic of schism that he contended had been in the church for 1200 years.71 Even within the first pages of his short work on the topic, Henry attempted to call his readers to introspection, noting that “the most guilty [of schism] have been most hot in charging others,”72 a clear indictment against the Anglicans. In line with the nonconformity of his day, Henry emphasized the Lordship of Christ over his own church and thus those who called something sin which is not called sin by God are “stepping into the Throne of God who is a jealous God [...].”73 The impositions of the Church of England upon those who refused to conform were a usurpation of rights and authority not its own, a common appeal of Nonconformists. Henry defined schism fundamentally as a lack of charity and an issue of the heart: “It is not so much our differences themselves, as the mismanagement of our differences that is the bane of the Church burning up Christian love with the fire of our contentions.”74 He argued that “[u]nity of affection is the thing to be labour’d after more than uniformity in modes and ceremonies.”75 Calamy likewise defined schism as “a want of true love and charity” and added this explanation: “For as heresie is oppos’d to the faith, so is schism oppos’d to love; and both heresie and schism are distinguish’d by those things to which each of them is oppos’d.”76 This being the case, schism can be present where no separation exists and separation may exist where no schism can be found.77 In this moderate ecclesiology, one could separate even for significant reasons yet remain in communion with those from whom she has separated. Matthew Henry noted that there can be a “difference of apprehension, and yet no schism, provided it do not eat out Christian love, but be manag’d amicably, as betwixt the Arminians and Calvinists in the Church of

70 Douglas Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England, 1661–1689 (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1969), p. 238. 71 Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 1. 72 Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 2. 73 Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 3. 74 Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 22. 75 Henry, A Brief Enquiry, pp. 32–33. 76 Calamy, Abridgement, p. 554. 77 Henry, A Brief Enquiry, pp. 22–24. Cf. Calamy, Abridgement, p. 555.

Elements of Moderation

England, and divers the like.”78 Occasional conformity, as noted above, would fit Henry’s framework of managing amicably such division. In such cases of “justifiable separation” Henry preferred the language of “diversity of communion” rather than separation.79 When differences exist with regard to “worship, or communion, and the modes or terms thereof,” it is reasonable and practical for there to be a separation.80 Calamy referred to “differing apprehensions about lesser things of religion” as reasonable justification of separation without being schismatic, since this would not constitute “an uncharitable alienation of Christians hearts from each other [...].”81 Such “alienation” of hearts comprised true schism. The essential matters must remain central and moderate Nonconformists considered agreement on fundamental doctrines to be the seat of unity. The issue is not where one meets but rather what one believes: Those who will allow themselves the liberty of an unprejudic’d thought, cannot but see the difference so small, that as long as we believe the same Christian Faith, and agree in the same Protestant abhorrence of Papal Delusions, we may easily be look’t upon as one and the same church, as well as two several parish churches may, especially being united under the Care and Protection of one Protestant King, and members of the same Protestant Common wealth (emphasis added).82

Here, Henry espouses an ecclesiological conviction that emphasized the invisible over the visible, although both are present. In explaining what specific circumstances may arise that permit a separation that is not schismatic, Henry offered this: “If my own conscience be not satisfy’d in the lawfulness of any terms of communion impos’d, as far as I fall under that imposition, I may justify a separation from them [...].”83 The prominence of conscience, private judgment, and liberty, along with the concern with un-Scriptural impositions, revealed the deeply entrenched mantra of Dissent. Calamy spent the entire tenth chapter of his Abridgement carefully documenting the reasons for separation yet ending with a defense of the practice of occasional conformity—separation, that is, without schism.84 Separation from a particular body of worshippers is justified if, orthodox doctrine notwithstanding, the said body has practices that one finds to be without biblical authority. In some situations, although the original church is

78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 23. Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 26. Henry, A Brief Enquiry, pp. 23–24. Calamy, Abridgement, p. 555. Henry, A Brief Enquiry, pp. 24–25. Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 26. Calamy, Abridgement, pp. 497–567.

65

66

A Circle of Moderate Friends

not heretical, there may be a “purer” communion established, and one is permitted, according to Matthew Henry to leave the first. To elucidate his thoughts, Henry used the example of local physicians as analogous—if only one physician is available, one visits her when sick; if a better one appears, one goes to the one she is most confident in.85 The identity of the physician qua physician is not in question rather the quality of her work is viewed in comparison to another equally identifiable as a physician. Moderate Nonconformists did not reject the Anglican Church as a true church but where a Dissenting church was found with purer marks, the Christian ought to be allowed to worship there without fear of penalty. In order to understand this ecclesiological moderation, it is necessary to explore the real essence of schism. Matthew Henry stated it this way: “Schism is an uncharitable distance, division, or alienation of affections among those who are called Christians, and agree in the fundamentals of religion, occasion’d by their different apprehensions about little things.”86 Referring to the 14th Chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he insisted that ascribing motives and judging the hearts of those one disagrees with is “certainly uncharitable, that is, schismatical.”87 He offered further examples of this uncharitable behavior in Christians who judge “those that differ from us, excluding them out of the church, and from salvation, because they are not just of our mind in every punctilio.”88 One can hardly miss the reference here to the “unfeigned assent and consent” clause of the Act of Uniformity of 1662 which many believed forced schism. Henry pushed further, referring to a number of Anglican practices that could be categorized as uncharitable, including an allusion to the Anglican requirement that clergy be ordained by a Diocesan bishop. This particular aspect of the debate was taken up by Owen a few years later. Drawing his readers’ attention to Paul’s famous “Laws of Charity” in the 13th chapter of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Henry offered this piercing summary: “And remember that all transgression of those laws is uncharitableness, and when that is found in the things of religion, it is schism (emphasis original).”89 To which he adds: The corollary from the whole is this, that whoever they be that allow themselves in these or the like practices and affections towards their brethren that differ from them in little things, whether they be Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent or by what name or title soever they are self-dignify’d and distinguish’t, they are so far schismatical, inasmuch as they break the great Law of Christian Charity.90

85 86 87 88 89 90

Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 29. Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 15. Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 16. Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 17. Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 20. Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 20.

Elements of Moderation

Schism pertains to a lack of charity and not simply the location at which one gathers for worship. Yet, as was the case with most Protestants at the time, Henry did not extend this “charity” beyond Reformed denominations. Written as a defense of Dissent, Tallents’ Short History of Schism (1705) offered insight into the ecclesiological convictions of moderate Nonconformists. From early in this work, Tallents affirmed familiar Dissenting perspectives like the final authority of the holy scriptures, as opposed to ecclesiastical laws, and the possibility of internal schism even where external separation does not occur.91 His expressed aim in this published work was simply to answer two proposed questions: first, are schismatics in a state of damnation? And second, may others worship with them at any time? 92 Acknowledging that others before him had already considered the question of schism in general, he was convinced these two questions were most pertinent to the contemporary issues of his day. He wrote: “I intend not to enter into the disputes concerning schisms or divisions in Churches or from churches, or who are guilty of them; that’s done by many and all sides [...]. Since therefore both of them cast it on one another, it’s needful to be impartially consider’d by both, since God will judge them both without respect of persons.”93 Here, like Henry before him, Tallents was critical of both conformists and Nonconformists. Tallents conceded the harm done to the body by virtue of separation yet insisted that there are greater and lesser types of separation, distinguished by their motivations. To maintain that all those who separate are in a state of damnation is untenable for four reasons: First, Tallents likened this position to a Roman Catholic perspective rather than a Protestant one; second, the scriptures do not confirm this view but speak against it; third, that if it were true, many genuine believers would be damned; and fourth, he argued that this position was taken from a few passages within the Church Fathers, particularly Cyprian, but their [the Fathers’] authority is not binding and sometimes in error.94 In fact, moderate Nonconformists believed that it was the Church of England that caused the real schism. Tallents offered an historical anecdote to clarify the accusation against Anglicans. He referred to the followers of John Chrysostom (the Joannites) and their reaction to the expulsion of Chrysostom from Constantinople. According to Tallents, the Joannites “separated only because their holy and beloved Bishop Chrysostom was unjustly put out and hardly us’d [...].” The English Protestant Dissenters, according to Tallents, similarly “had hundreds, nay, about two thousand of their holy and

91 92 93 94

Tallents, A Short History of Schism, pp. 8–9. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 2. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 4. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 11. These four considerations were the outline for Tallents’ entire book, each constituting a section of his defense against the accusation of schism.

67

68

A Circle of Moderate Friends

belov’d pastors put out, and many of them eminent for their worth.”95 Tallents states that he was not advocating that the Joannites were right to separate for this reason nor does he know of any Dissenters who used this line of reasoning. What he was concerned with, however, was the response of the church in Constantinople to the Joannites: “But here we see the Joannites would not join with the church of CP [Constantinople], though nothing sinful was impos’d [...]However, the church had a great respect for these Joannites, and strove to satisfy and win them, which they did, tho it was 34 years after Chrysostom’s deposition [...].”96 So high was this regard of the Joannites that, according to Tallents, “when tho they could not raise him [Chrysostom] from the dead, they brought his body in triumph to CP.” This caused Tallents to ponder, “And should nothing be done to win the sober English Dissenters […]?”97 Not only did Tallents find a lack of respect for Nonconformists, he noted how severe the disrespect was: “Many perhaps will have great familiarity with fornicators, drunkards and other wicked people, but will not eat or be familiar with a sober Dissenter.”98 In his estimation, it was this lack of charity that comprises schism and sober Dissenters could not rightfully be accused of such a position. In distinguishing the Dissenters from the Donatists, Tallents wrote that the English Dissenters “own the churches of God in England and abroad, and as they have opportunity, worship God with them; whereas divers of their chief opposers will not join with them at all, or with the Reform’d Churches abroad.”99 Once again, Tallents points to Anglicanism as responsible for schism rather than Dissent. As evidence that conforming only some of the time ought not require conforming all of the time, Tallents referred his readers to the Apostle Paul and his varied practice of circumcision. Tallents notes that the Apostle had Timothy circumcised whereas he refused to have Titus circumcised. When it came to making offerings in the temple, Paul considered the Jews “too zealous for the Law, and misinform’d [...]” yet participated himself in purification rituals to “satisfy believing Jews,” an act that Tallents was sure Paul would not do consistently.100 The occasional nature was not a compromise; it was a thoughtful display of his principles and doctrinal commitments.

95 96 97 98 99 100

Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 65. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, pp. 65–66. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 66. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 87. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 79. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 114.

Elements of Moderation

3.2.4 Lordship of Christ over Conscience Central to the concern of moderate nonconformity was the issue of authority. The role of the scriptures as compared to that of the clergy and episcopacy was of the highest importance. Related to the issue of authority was the place of the conscience and the possibility of reform in Christ’s church. Tallents examined the debate with Anglicanism with regard to the question of reform. Consistent with other Nonconformists, Tallents sensed that the Act of Uniformity was an infringement on and deterrent against any kind of reform. Against the demand that all those who agree with the “main things” conform and communicate with the church all of the time, even though they take issue with what they deem corrupt practices of the Church, Tallents wrote: “[...] this is a false principle, and tends to destroy the Church of God; for it tends to hold up evils in Churches, and to put a bar to all reformation in churches and nations, tho very great evils reign in the them.”101 Against the accusation that Dissenters weaken the Church, Tallents countered, that, in fact, Dissenting churches strengthen the Church by acting as a “check to corrupt opinions that are apt to grow up, and to the wickedness of places where they live, and stirs up the publick ministers to be more diligent and careful in their work and in their lives.”102 It is only when avenues for reform are hindered that corruption can go unchecked. Not only do Dissenters strengthen the Church of England, but they also strengthen the universal church. Appealing to the consequences of the corruption of ungodly men within the church at the times of Cyprian and Eusebius, Tallents noted that “sins have destroyed many churches, and will destroy us also if they prevail [...]. And this the Nonconformists in their places endeavour and strive to prevent as they are able; and ’tis this, ’tis this which puts them upon what they do, and not their differences in lesser things.”103 Making emphatic his own ecclesiological conviction, he states plainly: “The true mystical church of Christ lies in the godly that truly love him, but there are many wicked men in the visible church that oppose and fight against him.”104 Tallents, along with the other moderates, understood that without the opportunity to dissent, error in the church could not be weeded out. Perhaps no single sentence in Calamy’s extensive writings in defense of nonconformity is more poignant and direct than this: “But till the Holy Scripture will pass for the sufficient rule or law of faith and worship; and till it be agreed, that all ecclesiastical institutions and regulations, as well as the power they are bottom’d on, 101 102 103 104

Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 114. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 122. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, pp. 124–125. Tallents, A Short History of Schism, p. 125.

69

70

A Circle of Moderate Friends

be try’d by its autority [sic]; it be must expected there will be a number, that will still be earnest for a farther reformation.”105 Here, Calamy advanced the common positions of the Dissenters that the 16th Century Protestant Reformation did not complete the necessary work of reforming the church and that the scriptures must be the final authority in faith and practice.106 For Calamy and all Dissenters, it was the unscriptural impositions and additions by the Roman Church and later by the Anglican Church that were to be rejected. Certainly, some elements of ecclesiology and ecclesiastical practice were clear in the scriptures and required, “but as for the method of their management, he [Christ] hath left it free to be vary’d, according to times, seasons, and circumstances, agreeably to the general rules of Scripture.”107 Calamy emphasized that the Lord “hath appointed an order of men to act as officers [...]. But the precise time, the manner, the method, the gesture, the habit, that is to be us’d in this case, he has left indifferent, provided the general rules of the Word be but observ’d [...].”108 Central to the appeal of moderate Dissent was that the Lord of the church himself had given liberty of conscience in things indifferent and the Church of England could not usurp his authority. In agreement with many who came before him, Calamy argued that “charity and forbearance is the way to order, and that pride and imposition [...] the spring of confusion.”109 Matthew Henry more than a decade earlier had written in defense of conscience, arguing “If my own conscience be not satisfy’d in the lawfulness of any terms of communion impos’d, as far as I fall under the imposition, I may justify a separation from them [the Church of England] [...].”110 In other words, it was not the Dissenters who were schismatic, but rather those who added unscriptural impositions. There were both centrifugal and centripetal forces at work within the hearts and thinking of moderate Dissenters. They felt the need to separate yet simultaneously the necessity to have unity with the Church of England. Unwilling to admit the guilt of schism, they defended a separation that was not schismatic; loath to be seen as divisive, they emphasized an internal and doctrinal unity. For the moderate Dissenters, it was a reasoned and intentional decision to advocate occasional conformity. This practice, shunned by many on both sides, captured the heart of their ecclesiological commitments: charity, unity, and liberty. As we will see in the following chapters, James Owen himself espoused and advocated just this kind of moderation.

105 Calamy, A Defence, pp. 5–6. 106 Note that Owen’s first published work that received significant response was a sermon entitled A Plea for Scripture Ordination (London: 1694). 107 Calamy, A Defence, p. 6. 108 Calamy, A Defence, p. 7. 109 Calamy, A Defence, p. 11. 110 Henry, A Brief Enquiry, p. 26.

4.

James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority

Although the intent of the Act of Toleration has been debated, at the very least, it set the trajectory toward legalized Protestant pluralism. It also opened the door for Nonconformists to publish more openly, allowing greater interaction of ideas among Protestant thinkers of various stripes. As we will examine in the following chapters, James Owen was actively engaged in defending a moderate form of nonconformity. His conviction about the necessity to defend Dissent led to his published works arguing for the legitimacy of Presbyterian ordination as well as the practice of occasional conformity. In both cases, Owen revealed an astute awareness of the need to engage Anglicans through the use of the writings of antiquity and not only the scriptures. Although, as we shall see, Owen was not prepared to endue the early church fathers with authority reserved only for the Bible, he did exert significant effort in showing that the fathers agreed with his moderate Nonconformist positions. This, often heavy, emphasis on the evidence of history appears to have been a consequence of the era in which he wrote. As John Seed explains in his Dissenting Histories: Religious Division and the Politics of Memory in Eighteenth-Century England, “History, then, was not merely one preoccupation of the eighteenth-century Dissenters, it was a central and shaping force, or, perhaps more accurately, a set of sometimes contending forces.”1 As the Church of England was increasingly focusing on using antiquity to defend its identity, Owen and some of the circle of friends that surrounded him also found wisdom and strength in identifying their views as ancient.2 In his 1988 essay, Leslie W. Barnard noted that in the seventeenth century many Church of England clergy were beginning to appeal more regularly to the church fathers. He explained the shift in the following terms: “The attraction of such scholarship was its openendedness, historical outlook and freedom from the rigidities of Roman or Reformed dogmatism.”3 Barnard’s insight is confirmed by Jean-Louis

1 John Seed, Dissenting Histories: Religious Division and the Politics of Memory in Eighteenth-Century England (Edinburgh University Press, 2008), p. 8. 2 Seed, Dissenting Histories, p. 13–40; for the Anglican context, see Yudha Thianto, “Baptismal Practice and Trinitarian Belief in Joseph Bingham’s Origines Ecclesiasitcae: A study in the historical and theological contexts of patristic scholarship at the close of the era of orthodoxy” (PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2006), pp. 140–145, and throughout. 3 Leslie W. Barnard, “The Use of the Patristic Tradition in the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries,” in Scripture, Tradition and Reason: A Study in the Criteria of Christian Doctrine, edited by Richard Bauckham and Benjamin Drewery (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), pp. 186–187.

72

James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority

Quantin who writes, “The Anglican use of the Fathers owed its character to the specific situation of the Church of England itself, which had to repel attacks from two directions, Rome and the Dissenters at home.”4 Quantin elsewhere traces the complex history of the development of the Anglican use of the Fathers, showing how the Anglican reliance on the fathers formed, in part, in response to the Puritan emphasis on the inward work of the Holy Spirit.5 Quantin also notes that, although moderate Presbyterians would often refer to the early fathers, Richard Baxter disputed Anglican reliance on them. Baxter, in fact, offered a variety of reasons to question the fathers rather than receive them as authority, including their lack of unanimity on issues and their proven errors.6 According to Quantin, neither Baxter nor the Dissenters were a match for the Church of England when it came to the study of patristics.7 Baxter’s inadequacies with regard to patristic scholarship were exposed by Anglicans and used to undermine his arguments against epsiscopalianism.8 It was in this context that Owen began to both study and write, developing a reputation both as a divine and scholar. His careful research into antiquity appears to betray a keen awareness that nonconformity lacked a significant historical connection to ancient orthodoxy. His respect for Baxter could also have led him to want to vindicate his beloved example of moderation. His pursuit of origins certainly fit well within the scholarly milieu and atmosphere of the late seventeenth century.

4.1

Early Influences

“He had an inexhaustible thirst after learning,” wrote James Owen’s younger brother Charles in the opening chapter of his hagiographic biography, adding further that “[h]e consecrated his youth to his [God’s] honour who had inspir’d him with a just sense of eternal things.”9 From an early age, James Owen understood the weight of “eternal things,” writing soon after his conversion at age fifteen, that “’Tis the highest wisdom in the world to be earnest about the things of eternity.”10 It is evident that 4 Jean-Louis Quantin, “The Fathers in Seventeenth Century Anglican Theology,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, Volume 2, edited by Irena Backus (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001), p. 1000. 5 Jean-Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 252–257. 6 Quantin, The Church of England, p. 265–266. 7 Quantin, The Church of England, pp. 314ff. 8 Quantin, The Church of England, pp. 315–319. 9 Charles Owen, Some Account of the Life and Writings of the Late Pious and Learned, Mr. James Owen (London: 1709), pp. 3, 5. 10 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 5.

Early Influences

from that point onward, Owen was earnest and fervent in his desire to understand and advance the Kingdom of God. Trained both in classics and philosophy, Owen went on to prepare for the ministry, first under his Anglican Godfather James Howel, then under a series of Dissenting ministers. His passion for the scriptures and church history remained strong throughout his lifetime, powerfully displayed in the various published works and debates in which Owen participated. James Owen was born into a staunchly conformist household. While under the tutelage of James Howel, Owen made a concerted effort to study “the terms of conformity with real impartiality,” resulting in his thoughtful, conscience-driven decision to pursue nonconformity.11 Convinced at length to become a Dissenter, Owen was well-aware of the implications of such a decision and accepted readily the considerable opposition he would face. He was ordained into the Nonconformist ministry in October 1677 just before his twenty-third birthday, a decade prior to the Toleration Act of 1689, and he endured various persecutions, including imprisonment. Charles noted that from prison, James wrote to family members a revealing statement: “That if the Gospel was not worth suffering for, ’twas not worth the preaching—’Tis indeed an honour, after we’ve preach’d the truth, to be call’d forth to suffer for it.”12 This commitment to his Dissenting convictions was not tangential but central to Owen’s life as indicated by the closing statement of a covenant he wrote to God after his first marriage: Make me perfect in every good work to do thy will, working in me that which is well pleasing in thy sight, even steadfastness of heart in thy covenant, thro’ Jesus Christ, in whom thou hast made with me an everlasting covenant to be my God, and take me for one of thy people, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.13

It was this devotion that led Owen to pursue Christian ministry as a pastor, a teacher, an historian of the church, and an advocate for the Nonconformist cause. Owen was certainly a product of the Reformation and a devoted Protestant, writing at a time when the established Church in England, though Protestant, was very much at odds with the Dissenters. It was a time of particular angst as issues developed around the Toleration Act—issues of the legitimacy of nonconformity, its churches, and its academies. As a devoted Protestant, Owen was very antagonistic toward Rome and anything that appeared to have Roman Catholic influence upon the Anglican Church. Owen endorsed moderate nonconformity and found occasional conformity desirable, insisting that the Anglican Church bore the marks

11 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 6. 12 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 20. 13 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 26.

73

74

James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority

of a true church.14 Yet he had a particular disdain for what he considered the “ceremonies and superstitions” of the Roman church that remained within the practices of the Church of England. He had a very high view of the original reformers and often made note of them and their progeny, considering himself one of them. Owen was also an historian. Most of his works include a significant focus on historical studies, revealing his classical education and his commitment to understanding the development of various traditions. He had a strong sense that understanding the origin of a particular practice would elucidate its value. For this reason, he produced major works on the origins of various practices, including the question of instruments in worship, the history of images in worship, and the history of consecrated spaces (altars, temples, churches, etc.). He also wrote extensively on the topic of ordination, and he had been working on an historical overview of the church’s ordination practices which never came to fruition due to his untimely death.15 John Evans, in his prefatory comments to Owen’s posthumously published work on images, wrote, If any talent were his master-piece, it was an acquaintance with ecclesiastical history. He had spent a great deal of time in perusing the several monuments of antiquity upon that copious subject. And had digested what he had read with such exactness, that he could not only trace a doctrine or practice thro’ the several ages of the church in a little time, by the help of his references, but readily entertain his friends off-hand upon most subjects of that nature that were occasionally started.16

Evans’ remarks capture well the intention of Owen’s historical approach when he adds, “’Tis [his research was] mightily for the service of truth, by representing it in several views, and shewing the progress of light and knowledge, and the several oppositions [it] weather’d.”17 Owen considered his historical writings to be in defense of the truth, just as much as his exegetical publications. In this chapter, we will explore how the passions of Owen developed into a careful theological and historical methodology which he used throughout his lifetime. What was the place of scripture, providence, and history, in Owen’s approach to doctrine and practice? We will examine Owen’s published works, highlighting obvious patterns.

14 James Owen, Moderation a Virtue: Or, the Occasional Conformist Justified from the Imputation of Hypocrisy (London: 1703), pp. 11ff. 15 James Owen, The History of Images and of Image-Worship (London: 1709), A4. 16 Owen, The History of Images, A3. 17 Owen, The History of Images, A4 verso.

Owen’s Sources of Authority

4.2

Owen’s Sources of Authority

4.2.1 Scripture The theological foundation and standard for both doctrine and practice was very clear in Owen’s writing—scripture was the final authority. When it came to his defense of moderate nonconformity, his argument was simple: “The author of moderation allow’d the lawfulness of joyning with an imposed liturgy, but judg’d the dissenting communions, which have none, more eligible, because they come nearer the Scriptures.”18 In the opening chapter of his work on the history of images, Owen noted: “It is the privilege of Christians only, to have a compleat system of the divine will, and it is our duty to attend to the sacred oracles, as the only measure of religion and religious worship.”19 In his argument against the consecration of buildings, Owen focused on the lack of scriptural warrant for such practices. He sharply reprimanded the Jesuit who was arguing in favor of this practice, asserting that “[h]e can produce but one place in all the New Testament that seems to favour it (viz. 1 Cor. 11.) and that speaks not one word of consecrated places, which the Christians had not in the apostles time [...].”20 His customary approach in each debate or theological controversy was simple—consult scripture first and then move on to additional evidences. The priority of place he gave to the Bible was made explicit in his debate on the issue of the ordination of Nonconformists, a debate he had with Anglican Thomas Gipps which lasted a number of years and included numerous published works (see chapter 5). The Anglican position was that bishops were required for ordination and that ordination by presbyters alone was not valid. In formulating his arguments against this position, Owen began with scripture, noting that the Bible does not distinguish between the terms bishop and presbyter, nor is there any biblical precedent for having a diocesan bishop with greater authority than a presbyter, as advocated for by the Church of England. The Anglican position which insisted on this greater authority, according to Owen, was no better than the Roman Catholic position: “Our English Episcopacy hath scarce one argument for it’s defence, but what will indifferently serve the Popish prelacy.”21 Furthermore, Owen revealed his path to this conclusion, offering the only grounds by which doctrine and practice may be developed: “By valid, I mean not what the old canons make so, but what the Scriptures determine to be so. Those sacred oracles which are of divine inspiration, and not arbitrary canons of weak men’s devising, are the 18 19 20 21

James Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue: In Answer to Several Bitter Pamphlets (London: 1704), p. 26. Owen, The History of Images, p. 2. James Owen, The History of the Consecration of Altars, Temples, and Churches (London: 1706), p. 22. James Owen, A Plea for Scripture Ordination (London: 1694), p. 17.

75

76

James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority

foundation of our faith, and the infallible standard by which truth and errour must be tried.”22 Owen’s insistence on the primacy of scripture fit well with his Protestant identity and was a reflection of many who came before, including Martin Luther who wrote: “For the Word of God is incomparably superior to the church, and in this Word the church, being a creature, has nothing to decree, ordain, or make but only to be decreed, ordained, and made.”23 Elsewhere, Owen emphasized the same attitude with this warning: “If once we forsake the Holy Scriptures, as the rule of worship, we become vain in our own imaginations, and lose our selves in the thick darkness of carnal wisdom [...].” 24 Owen would not forsake the scriptures and would continually return to them as the grounds for his beliefs. This scripture-first mindset was put into practice by Owen throughout his various published works, as he carefully exegeted scripture to draw conclusions, showing his work as he instructed his readers and opponents in right thinking and interpretation. Often he quoted directly the original languages, parsing terms, analyzing contexts and using a particular framework for interpretation. For Owen, this proper framework was heavily focused on a New Testament lens through which even the Old Testament must be interpreted. In keeping with earlier Puritan views, he opposed the use of organs in worship, and here he revealed his underlying hermeneutic by stating that “the New Testament makes no mention of any instrumental musick us’d in divine worship, and had it been really profitable, woul’d the Holy Jesus and his faithful apostles pass it by in such profound silence?” When responding to the use of various Old Testament examples, such as Miriam in Exodus 15, to argue for the use of instruments, Owen retorted provocatively These musical-women danced at the same time, so that sir, you may see without the help of a pair of canonical spectacles, that dancing in divine worship is of the same age with instrumental musick [...] I know no reason why you shou’d graciously receive the musical part of the old service into the church, and utterly reject the dancing part.25

Owen understood these Old Testament instruments typologically, pointing to some greater reality to come, and as parts of the ceremonial law, as distinguished from the moral law. In this context he asked his opponents the question: “What warrant have you to restore and retain one part of the ceremonial law more than another

22 Owen, A Plea, pp. 9–10. 23 Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” ed. Abdel Ross Wentz, in Luther’s Works, vol. 36, Word and Sacrament II (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press), p. 107. 24 Owen, The History of Images, p. 2. 25 James Owen, Church-Pageantry Display’d: or, Organ Worship, Arraign’d and Condemn’d (London: 1700), p. 2.

Owen’s Sources of Authority

part?”26 The typological approach to scripture loomed large in Owen’s methodology and was of particular significance in his position against Roman Catholicism (see below). Connected closely to his understanding of the role of scripture was his understanding of the role of Christ as the head of the church. Owen argued persuasively that the origin of the distinction between the role and authority of bishops and presbyters was not found in scripture but originated from human tradition. This very fact, that episcopacy grew not from scripture’s direction but from some human authority, caused Owen to see the English Episcopate as “destructive to the Scripture and primitive form” and argue “it is a human creature which grew up as the Man of Sin did, and owes it’s being to the meer favour of secular powers [...].”27 Since it is a “human creature [...] of secular powers,” it is, according to Owen, a usurpation of the right that belongs only to Christ as head of his church, as made manifest through his Word. Owen emphasized the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Holy Spirit that were both being arrogated by human leaders by adding to the scriptural terms of pastoral call and elsewhere church membership.28 His sparring partner on the topic of ordination, Thomas Gipps, argued that there were other sources of authority, or as he labeled them, “rules of faith,” outside of the scriptures. Owen responded with biting rhetoric: Would you think it, that a Protestant divine, should talk thus ignorantly of the blessed Scriptures? Are the precepts in Plato and Seneca, as excellent as those of the Holy Bible? Can he find such high strains and noble flights of piety in pagan authors, as in the inspired writings? A man that has felt the power of God’s Word renewing, quickning, comforting and strengthening his heart, will acknowledge the vast difference between inspired and humane writings, and resolve his faith into the authority of God, who speaks powerfully and feelingly unto our consciences by his Spirit in the Scriptures, which have signatures of their Divine original upon them, that no book besides can lay claim to.29

For Owen, there were other writings outside of scripture that can be “helps unto our faith,” but they are certainly not “rules of faith.”30 That honor is bestowed only upon the Bible which, for Owen, was the very voice of God himself.

26 Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 2. 27 Owen, A Plea, pp. 31–32. 28 E.g., James Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum: or, A Defence of Scripture Ordination (London: 1697), 98, 108, et al. 29 James Owen, A Further Vindication of the Dissenters (London: 1699), p. 6. 30 Owen, A Further Vindication, p. 7.

77

78

James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority

4.2.2 Providence In a sermon of thanksgiving for the protection of King William III from an assassination attempt, Owen revealed a significant aspect of his theological reasoning: a robust view of providence and divine activity within history. Setting out to exposit the tenth verse of Psalm 144, Owen summarized: “There is a particular providence, that concerns its self in the preservation of king and princes, especially of such as are good.”31 For Owen, there could be no question whether or not God was active in the day to day life of his creatures since he “upholds and preserves them all […].”32 As he remembered a “dangerous plot” against the life of King William by some who desired the return of King James, Owen remarked that the “all-seeing eye” of God protects good princes against secret conspiracies.33 God is watching over and protecting his own people, including and especially, his princes. This view of history is evident throughout his writings, as it is assumed that all that occurs is under the sovereign hand of God, directed by him, and headed toward consummation. Yet a closer look at Owen’s message reveals something deeper. Owen had a particularly high view of English Protestantism and an equally exalted view of King William who advanced the Toleration Act which gave Dissenting Christians liberty to worship without fear of imprisonment or fine. Calling William “our Great Deliverer” and England, “our Protestant Israel,”34 Owen was convinced that the English Protestants enjoyed the hand of God guiding, protecting, and triumphing for them. He noted that “[a]ll histories are full of instances of a particular vigilancy of providence over princes, but no age hath afforded more pregnant ones than those that concern the person of our illustrious King William. A narrative of all the remarkable deliverances of his life, would fill up a just volumn [sic].”35 This fits his apparent view of England as the New Israel and Roman Catholicism the Egypt from which they had escaped.36 Owen explicitly interprets various passages from the scriptures as having specific application for his contemporary England and the political happenings of the time. This Anglo-centric hermeneutic is particularly interesting as Owen interacted with the Anglican hierarchy and its opposition toward Dissenters. Owen’s studied grasp of English secular and religious history was useful in such debates. Though he did not allot large portions of his published works to this theme, this providential view

31 James Owen, Salvation Improved: In a Sermon upon the 16th of April 1696 (London: 1696), p. 4. 32 Owen, Salvation Improved, p. 4. 33 Owen, Salvation Improved, p. 6. 34 Owen, Salvation Improved, p. 6. 35 Owen, Salvation Improved, p. 10. 36 Owen, Salvation Improved, pp. 16ff.

Owen’s Sources of Authority

of history led Owen to see the Reformation and what followed (particularly in England) as a significant confirmation by God of Rome’s errors.37 As we will see below, Rome plays a significant role in Owen’s writings as the source of opposition to the truth and to his beloved England. 4.2.3 History The Fathers

Owen had the utmost respect for the church fathers and indeed acknowledged that he owed them “the debt of an honourable memory.”38 Often he returned to the ancient fathers as a source of authority, particularly with regard to its practices, though the later the tradition, he believed, the more suspect the sources were, at least up until the time of the Reformation.39 Regarding the use of musical instruments during worship, Owen appealed in particular to the long practice in the history of the church. Owen argued that there was no mention of the use of organs in worship until the 9th century and noted further that Aquinas, in the twelfth century, confirms that organs were not used regularly for worship even as late as his time.40 He quoted freely from fathers such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Chrysostom, arguing that they all understood the use of musical instruments from the Old Testament was intended as a typology for the new age.41 He added that Clement interpreted the instruments of the Psalms as referring to the mouth and tongue of the believer and quotes him as having said, “That then they made use only of one instrument, the peaceful word with which they honour’d God.”42 To have the fathers in agreement, especially when Owen was convinced they agreed with scripture, meant that the case was closed. The authority he ascribed to these men, though second to the authority ascribed to scripture, is remarkable. He quoted Chrysostom as having taught that musical instruments are “alien to the Christian church,” then argued that “either he was erroneous in’s judgment, or the patrons of our melodious organs are guilty of an

37 E.g., Owen, The History of Images, ca. p. 277. Owen refers, in apparent agreement, to an author who viewed the Church of Rome as “the Grand Antichrist.” 38 Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 5. 39 Jean-Louis Quantin explains that this appeal to the early centuries and mistrust of the middle ages was common within seventeenth-century Anglicanism, “The Fathers in Seventeenth Century Theology,” p. 989. 40 Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 6. 41 Owen, Church-Pageantry, pp. 7–9. 42 Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 7.

79

80

James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority

unchristian practice.”43 Further, Owen pointed out that Augustine found such “carnal delight” in various forms of vocal embellishment in the church of his time, that he advocated for simpler ways. “If the more artificial way of vocal singing seem’d ensnaring to this devout father,” Owen wrote of Augustine, “what wou’d he have said to our modern organical consorts?”44 The very tastes of the church fathers held a place of honor in Owen’s perspective. Owen summarized his own historical overview of the fathers’ views with regard to musical instruments with a revealing statement: “Thus you see the venerable fathers unanimously declare against the Ecclesiastical use of organs; and therefore, you must either rebel against their paternal authority, or be content to knock under, as we say.”45 Owen had a high view of these fathers of the church, learned their works well, and was willing to refer back to them often. For one to disagree with the fathers meant that they believed the fathers were in error and to prove such would take a lot of convincing. It is evident from Owen’s works that he was well trained in ecclesiastical history, and he often appealed both to the fathers’ writings and to significant events of the past. Giving evidence that consecration is more functional than locational, Owen once again directed his readers to Clement of Alexandria who said, “Every place is truly sacred, in which we converse with God, and receive the knowledge of him.”46 When addressing the consecration of particular locations, Owen referred back to Constantine and the Nicene Council’s dedication of Constantinople as the New Rome. After briefly informing his readers of the background to that late development, he argued for what he portrayed as the real intent of the dedication: “[...] it signified no more than the committing of it to the divine protection [...].”47 His familiarity with the historical evidence and his detailed annotations referring readers back to the original sources strengthened his credibility and appears to have earned him quite a solid, scholarly reputation. Owen’s pattern of argumentation was very consistent throughout his various treatises—he began with scripture, then moved on to the fathers who play a prominent role in his writings as his way of piling up the evidence. He referred regularly to Irenaeus, Clement, Chrysostom, and Augustine, as well as others. He quoted them with annotations, citing his sources and often beginning with the original language used by the particular father, then adding his own translation. When necessary, Owen chronologically developed the trajectory of the primitive church’s views on a variety of topics, as seen in his major historical works on origins. It is also very clear that Owen believed that the fourth century was the beginning of a 43 44 45 46 47

Owen, Church-Pageantry, pp. 7–8. Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 9. Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 9 Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 16. Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 6.

Owen’s Sources of Authority

significant, and in his mind tragic, shift for the Christian church. This perspective echoed the appeal to the primitive church by Anglicans themselves. The title of the sixth chapter of his The History of the Consecration is “No consecrated temples for the three first centuries,”48 and this title reveals much about Owen’s method. This early age of the Christian church was of the utmost significance for Owen since, in his estimation, it often had continuity with the Apostolic age: “As Christ and his apostles appointed no consecrated temples for worship under the gospel, so the Christians of the Second and Third Age had no such places.”49 He referred regularly to the “Christians of the three first centuries” and emphasized the shift under Constantine: “[...] the unexpected peace and prosperity under Constantine, occasion’d a new turn of thought, very different from the sentiments of the persecuted advocates of former ages. As the outward splendor of the church increas’d, her inward glory decreas’d.”50 Not only did Owen indict the church after Constantine, but this concern with “outward splendor” was a complaint of Owen’s regarding both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches (see below). He alluded to the significance of suffering for piety and even called the first three centuries, in which there was significant persecution, “the purer ages.”51 When speaking of “magnificent temples,” according to Owen, the earlier ages of Christians “condemn’d ’em as unlawful, and fitter for demons than the true God. But now the case is alter’d, their sentiments change with their outward circumstances. What they had condemn’d in the former age as inconsistent with the Gospel, is now become an illustrious specimen of the Kingdom of the Redeemer.”52 And all of this came about because “[w]hile they were under the cross, they were not charm’d with the glory of outward structures [...] but now in their prosperity they are ravish’d with the splendor of a worldly sanctuary.”53 The issue for Owen was simplicity and purity. As he described a moderate Nonconformist, such as he himself, Owen wrote: “He professes simple Christianity, which he believes a divine thing, and so much the more amiable, by how much the less it has of humane [sic] mixtures.”54 He further complained against the Anglican prejudice against Nonconformists, writing: “In a word, why may not a man that practises [sic] apostolical Christianity, according to the Gospel, be as fit to serve his queen and country, as one that receives also

48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 36. Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 36. Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 42. Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 44. Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 50. Owen, The History of the Consecration, pp. 50–51. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 13.

81

82

James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority

the traditional and prudential additions?”55 For Owen, it was clear that Dissenters “prefer those churches, which, as he conceives, come nearer the apostolical pattern, in the exercise of a regular discipline, which was the glory of the primitive church, in the use of the ministerial gifts, and in the purity of Gospel-ordinances.”56 Owen would seek the purer practices of the early church by exploring the first three centuries and growing more cautious the further he found himself from the apostles. Certainly this was true only up until the time of the Reformation. Although Owen had a very high view of the fathers and the primitive church, and despite his regular references to their works, he desired to remain faithful to his understanding of the Bible as foundational. In discussing various sources of evidence from the fathers proposed in support of images during the Second Nicene Council (AD 787), Owen made this significant statement regarding the fathers: We are not to be determin’d by the testimony of fathers, admitting they were genuine and pertinently applied, as it’s certain some are not. All they prove, is, that those fathers who speak favourably of images, were men subject to error, and did not foresee the gross idolatry that was occasion’d by setting up images in Christian temples.57

When the fathers were found to stand opposed to Owen’s conviction from scripture, it was always the fathers who were wanting. He insisted that often all sorts of errors, including historical ones, were brought into the discussion at the Second Nicene Council, including a strange story about Constantine as a leper.58 With regard to the practices of the church, Owen remarked that “[t]he practice of the Christians of the IVth Age can be no rule to us, because several corruptions sprung up in the Fourth Century, some sooner, some latter [sic],” and then he cited examples including prayers for the dead, the use of relics, and the use of incense.59 Although he appears to generally respect the Cappadocian fathers, quoting them with a sense of reverence in some passages, they are not above his criticisms. As he bemoaned the rise of superstitious practices including the revering of saints, he spoke of the “funeral orations of Basil G. Nazianzen, Nyssen, &c. [sic] who address the dead, as if they were alive and present, and desire the benefit of their intercessions.”60 He respected the fathers and showed them honor, but their authority ended when they ceased to fit Owen’s understanding of scripture.

55 Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 49. It is not difficult to hear Richard Baxter’s own emphasis on the necessity of discipline in Owen’s words. 56 Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 17. 57 Owen, The History of Images, p. 99. 58 Owen, The History of Images, pp. 94ff. 59 Owen, The History of the Consecration, pp. 52–53. 60 Owen, The History of the Consecration, pp. 61–62.

Owen’s Sources of Authority

The Councils

Owen was well acquainted with the various church councils beginning with Nicaea and appears to have had a well-reasoned approach to their usefulness. Robert Bellarmine had argued in the sixteenth century that the consecration of churches was a practice advocated by the councils, Owen responded by noting that the two councils referred to specifically (Carthage AD 438 and Agatha AD 490) were “in the Vth Age, when corruptions abounded in the church.”61 Obviously, he was not convinced of the inherent authority of the councils and believed that the simple fact that there had been a council was not enough to establish its place of authority for the church. He went further to argue that the canon from the Nicene Council cited by Bellarmine in defense of this ancient practice of consecration “is spurious,” and returned to the subject later to prove his position.62 This overall suspicion of the councils, however, is not true in every instance and Owen appears to have some sense of the authority of the general councils. When speaking of the possibility of a general council without the bishop of Rome, Owen indicts the bishop for not attending but insisted that his absence “derogates not from the authority of the council.”63 As we will discuss below, there are some essential elements Owen looked for in order to consider a council legitimate. In his The History of Images, Owen had a lengthy discussion on a number of significant councils that addressed the topic of images and idolatry. He began with the Council of Constantinople of AD 754, emphasizing that in his view, it was more a “general council” than the Second Council of Nicaea of AD 787. He noted with approval that this council [Constantinople] “unanimously decreed, that images were idols, and the worshippers of ’em idolaters, that the departed saint have no power to intercede for us [...].”64 He affirmingly reported that the impact of this council was “the breaking of images in pieces, the burning of ’em, and the defacing of those that were painted on the wall.”65 His scorn toward the Roman Catholic Church and his suspicion regarding the later councils, however, was made explicit as he mentioned a Council of Gentiliace [sic] in France in AD 767. He

61 Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 22. 62 Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 22. Here, Owen appears to have been participating in an increasingly significant patristic scholarship in the seventeenth century. Irena Backus notes that there was a movement in that era toward more accurate transmission of the texts of the early church fathers in “The Fathers and Calvinist Orthodoxy: Patristic Scholarship,” ed Irena Backus in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001), p. 839. 63 Owen, The History of Images, p. 80. 64 Owen, The History of Images, p. 76. 65 Owen, The History of Images, p. 77.

83

84

James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority

conjectured that this particular council was also against images, but wrote that “[i]t appears that the image-worshippers have suppress’d the acts of other councils that were against images; as the Council of Constantinople [...] the acts of which are not to be found in the editions of the councils.”66 Owen believed that the popes and other “accomplices” who were in power undermined the genuine decisions of general councils which they deemed unacceptable to them, making such councils questionable. He reserved a particular level of contempt for the Second Council of Nicaea, which he considered an “idolatrous convention” and “not worthy of the name of a council, much less a general one.”67 It was this Second Council of Nicaea that anathematized the Council of Constantinople and went on to justify the use of images in churches and for worship. In comparing the two councils, Owen argued that the Council of Constantinople “was more justly entitled to the denomination of general, than the Nicene assembly,”68 noting that the Nicene assembly had only two papal legates representing the West, while the rest of the 350 bishops present were all from the East. Furthermore, Owen revealed something more about his perspective on councils by deriding the forced recantations prior to admission into the Second Nicene Council: “These [some bishops] were obliged to renounce their former heresie, as they call it, to fit in the Council [...]. This is a demonstration, that freedom of debates was not to be expected, in this council, since none were admitted to sit in it but such as declared themselves for image-worship.”69 Elsewhere, he lamented the fact that the right questions about the practices of the primitive church and scripture were not asked during the Second Nicene Council. For him it was because of the lack of “freedom of speech” and fair debate, which Owen understood as essential to a properly functioning general council. He insisted that the Second Nicene Council “was assembled to set up images, not to debate the lawfulness of them,” going on to add that “[t]he Fathers met to decree the adoration of images, not to dispute, whether it was according to the Holy Scriptures, or no.”70 Not only must a council be general and include participants from the church universal, but for Owen, the outcome of the council’s decisions must not be a foregone conclusion, since freedom of debate was a necessary component. The role of scripture in the councils was also important for Owen. He reported for his readers the various actions of the Second Nicene Council, including Action IV, which was intended to be a discussion of the scriptures and the fathers regarding image-worship. In case his readers missed it, Owen highlighted his complaint: “It 66 67 68 69 70

Owen, The History of Images, p. 77. Owen, The History of Images, p. 79. Owen, The History of Images, p. 80. Owen, The History of Images, p. 94. Owen, The History of Images, p. 104.

Owen’s Sources of Authority

is observable, that the synod had expressly declared for image-worship before the Bible was produced [...]. So the gentlemen declare for images, before the Holy Bible was brought to the assembly, and after the Pope’s letters, and those of the Eastern Patriarchs were read and approv’d, at length the Bible brings up the rear.”71 As noted above, Owen’s own theological methodology began with scripture and used the fathers to bolster his understanding of scripture, not vice versa, as in this case with the Second Nicene Council. He went on to question the biblical evidence proposed at the council as a defense of the use of images, revealing again his robust theological/covenantal hermeneutic: “We deny the consequence of this proposition for very good reasons. No argument can be drawn from the ceremonial law to the Gospel, because we are not under the obligation of that Law.”72 For Owen, it was a significant weakness of the council that only Old Testament passages (or New Testament references back to the Old) regarding ceremonial laws were read as evidence. It was a misunderstanding of the Word of God to maintain that which the New Testament abrogates. The Reformers

As a moderate Nonconformist, James Owen had a great deal of respect not only for other Dissenters, but also for the great thinkers of the English church of the Reformation. He regularly referred to the works and writings of Dr. Lightfoot, especially making use of his work for a variety of exegetical purposes.73 He referred on occasion to the likes of Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Cowper, both of the Church of England, but emphasized the well-known thinkers of the English Reformation, such as Peter Martyr Vermigli, Archbishop Cranmer, and Bishop Hooper. After noting that these and many other English Reformers stood against the use of instruments in worship, Owen wondered sardonically, “with what confidence some can pretend to have such a mighty veneration for our first Reformers, when yet they so zealously defend, and are so eager for retaining; what the Old Reformers thought better abolisht and quite remov’d.”74 Calvin and Zwingli also made Owen’s list of

71 Owen, The History of Images, p. 106. 72 Owen, The History of Images, p. 107. 73 E.g., James Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 12, where Owen quotes Lightfoot in defense of Owen’s own perspective that the New Testament church is a continuation of the synagogue, not the temple: “The famous Dr. Lightfoot, has a very pertinent passage to the purpose, said he, ‘Christ abolisht the use of the Temple, as purely ceremonious, but perpetuated the use of the synagogue, such as reading the Scriptures, Preaching, Praying, etc.’” Dr. John Lightfoot was a well-known seventeenth-century biblical scholar and clergyman whose reputation as a Hebraist allowed him to serve as a member of the Westminster Assembly. 74 Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 14.

85

86

James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority

quotable and authoritative thinkers on the issue of instruments in worship, as he noted Zwingli’s sentiment against chanting: “It’s evident (saith he) that ecclesiastical chanting—is a most foolish vain abuse, and a most pernicious hindrance to piety.”75 Although they were not advanced with the same authority of the ancient fathers, the Reformers were ascribed real weight in Owen. When dealing with contemporary issues within the Anglican Church, Owen regularly referred to Richard Baxter as well as his own contemporary, Edmund Calamy.76 His respect for both Baxter and Calamy, who wrote a biographical work and updated some of Baxter’s own work, is evident in the way he refers his reader to their works and adds, “whom he shou’d confute if he can.”77 As a whole, Owen valued his Dissenting ancestors and colleagues, defending moderate nonconformity in two works and Dissenting ordination in numerous others. He often highlighted the fact that the Dissenters were ahead of the Anglican Church in defending England from its enemies, including and especially Rome. In defense of Nonconformists he wrote: The dissenters saw the danger of popery much earlier in K. Ch. II’s reign, when the episcopal clergy were generally asleep; and the dissenting ministers, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Pool, Dr. Owen, the morning lecturers, &c, effectually confused the popish errors. The dissenters had a chief hand in reprinting the Book of Martyrs, in the year 1684.78

Owen seemed to view the Dissenters as true descendants of the Reformers and the true siblings of the Reformed churches outside of England. Often Owen referred to the current practices of the Reformed churches throughout Europe, referring to them as having insight as to whether or not the Church of England was faithful to the Reformation.79 The Opponent: Rome

As noted above, Owen found various sources of authority, ranging from scripture to the fathers of the church, even reaching to some of Owen’s own contemporaries. Intriguingly, however, a study of his theological methodology would be incomplete without an examination of his central intellectual and spiritual opponent, the Church of Rome. As a dedicated Protestant at heart, Owen identified closely with

75 76 77 78 79

Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 13. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 16. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 58. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 61. Owen, A Plea, pp. 61ff.

Owen’s Sources of Authority

the Reformers in their opposition to the Roman Church. Because of this pervasive sense of opposition to Rome, he read ecclesiastical history with a profoundly anti-Roman Catholic lens, emphasizing the glory of the first three centuries and identifying the fourth century as the beginning of the ecclesiastical dark ages. He often complained that Rome could not produce support for their claims prior to the fourth century, noting for example, against the Roman Catholic position that consecrating churches was an ancient practice: “[t]he Cardinal produceth no example of this practice before Constantine’s time [...].”80 As we have seen above, Owen began his inquiries with scripture, turned next to the early fathers, then, with increasing suspicion, examined the fathers and councils of the fourth century and beyond. Yet one must not miss another element consistently found in Owen’s methodology: descending from the more corrupted fathers comes the Roman Catholic Church and its impure and superstitious ways.81 In other words, the Roman Catholic Church is the product of the corruption that began to creep into the church beginning around the fourth century. The profound influence of Roman Catholicism on Owen’s thinking is evident in the number of times that he referred to Bellarmine and that renowned cardinal’s writings. With regard to the issue of musical instruments in worship, Owen asserted that “Bellarmine makes a hideous clamour about’s [sic] ‘altars, crosses, images, relicks and pictur’d walls, these are they,’ said he, ‘that stir up persons to piety.’”82 Yet it is the conclusion he drew for those within English Protestantism who favor musical instruments that revealed Bellarmine’s significance. Owen wrote regarding Bellarmine’s position: “This is the very language of our organical votaries: by which we may conjecture, that there’s a snake in the grass, for they can’t plead for an organ, or chant out an ecclesiastical ode, but th’ Old Cardinals cant must be the burden of the song, and then off it go’s with a bongrace.”83 In other words, if it looks like Rome and sounds like Rome, it is probably as bad as Rome. In the preface to his historical piece on the consecration of places and objects of worship, Owen made an explicit note regarding his purpose for producing such a work: The arguments urged by Bellarmine and other popish doctors for the consecration of churches, are [herein] distinctly and fully answer’d [...]. The tendency of the whole is to remove the prejudices of superstitious minds, who fancy the acceptance of God’s worship

80 Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 21. 81 E.g., The structure of both The History of the Consecration and The History of Images attest to this approach in Owen. A similar pattern, though slightly altered, is followed in his work on ordination. 82 Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 20. 83 Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 20.

87

88

James Owen’s Theological and Historical Methodology and Sources of Authority

to arise from its relation to a consecrated place; and to excite us to consecrate our selves as living temples unto God […].84

The pervasive presence of “superstitious minds” was of significant concern for Owen who was convinced that consecration had to do with use and function, not location.85 For Owen, Roman Catholicism was replete with such superstition and unbiblical emphasis on holy space, as opposed to true, Christian piety. Further, Owen was always concerned that the Church of England was too heavily influenced by the Church of Rome in its practices, one of the central reasons for his nonconformity. In his extended debate over the issue of the legitimacy of Nonconformist ordination, Owen wrote with disdain, “Our English Episcopacy hath scarce one argument for it’s defence, but what will indifferently serve the Popish prelacy.”86 As he argued against the Church of England’s prejudice against Nonconformists, he stated that “[i]t is remarkable, that this argument of the variety of sects, is the great argument of the Papists against the Protestants; and was the argument of the pagans against the Christians.”87 Often Owen criticized the Church of England on this very point, that it sounds too much like the Roman Catholic Church from which Protestants have fled. Owen’s typological approach to the Old Testament and his New Testament lens were important in his condemnation of Rome. He believed that the Roman Catholic Church was, with its legalistic tendencies, about the Law and not the Gospel. He showed that the Roman Church used the Temple of the Old Testament as its model for consecrating churches and in response Owen wrote that “[t]he Temple and Tabernacle were accommodated to the legal dispensation, and what was done in them can be no rule for Gospel times.”88 He went on to exposit the significance of the holiness of the Old Testament temple, arguing that it pointed to: first, “the holiness of Christ’s humanity,” second, “the purity of the faithful members of Christ,” and finally, “the most Holy Place [...] signified Christ’s entrance into heaven, to intercede for us, as the apostle teaches.”89 By overlooking these referents, Owen argued that the Roman Catholic view clung to the shadows and missed the “very image of the things,” evident in their insistence on a “real priest-hood and sacrifice,” even in this age.90 Owen added that “[t]he synagogues are the patterns of Christian

84 85 86 87 88 89 90

Owen, The History of the Consecration, A-2 verso. Owen, The History of the Consecration, pp. 4ff. Owen, A Plea, p. 17. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 36. Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 16. Owen, The History of the Consecration, pp. 17–18. Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 18.

Owen’s Sources of Authority

oratories and not the temple.”91 In other words, Owen believed that Rome had gone amiss in modeling their worship after the pattern of the temple since early Christian churches were structured after synagogues, local places of gathering and learning. The pomp and circumstance of the Roman Catholic Church, including its rites and rituals, were seen simply as superstition and a misreading of scripture. Elsewhere Owen condemningly asserted, “[t]he Romanists worship consecrated images with the same ceremonies with which the pagans worshipp’d theirs.”92 To Owen, the Roman Catholic Church was an opponent of the Gospel, an enemy from which the Protestants had been freed. His concern that the Church of England might return to her played a significant role in his theological reasoning. In the middle of his short piece against organs in worship, Owen made the following statement that concisely summarized his methodology: It’s to me unaccountable, that there shou’d be any English Protestants, who in spite of Scripture, Reason, Antiquity, and th’Church it self, I say, in spite of all these, will yet be the Pope’s baboons and expose th’ English Reformation to the Jears of Jesuits, Priests, and Fryers, who deride us sadly for this notorious piece of religious mimickry.93

Scripture had the place of primacy, yet reason, antiquity, and the church are never too far behind. The Catholic Church and those who expose English Protestantism to any form of ridicule were ever-present antagonists and sparring partners. Owen believed the Bible was the voice of God to his people and wanted to listen intently. He was convinced that the only reasonable approach was to study it well, delve deeply into its background and contents, and exposit the words. The fathers helped him in that endeavor. He trusted them because they were nearer the original than he. Owen was convinced that the closer one was to the beginning, the more accurate one’s information. He gave himself to just those types of studies, attempting always to find the root and fix the meaning of the problem or the truth. His complete confidence in God’s sovereignty also influenced his reasoning. God had a plan and design that could be traced through history. That plan and design had a prominent position for Owen’s beloved English Protestantism and he would do all he was able to do to maintain its position, especially against the attacks of the Romanists. All of these, scripture, providence, and the work of God’s people since the first advent of Christ, had great weight in his worldview. Each carried Owen forward toward his goal, a goal that began and ended with a “just sense of eternal things.”

91 Owen, The History of the Consecration, p. 19. 92 Owen, The History of Images, p. 281. 93 Owen, Church-Pageantry, p. 16.

89

5.

Ordination Controversy

Less than a decade into a new context of toleration and only fifty years removed from a painful civil war, tension between the Church of England and Dissenters remained high. Although they found themselves in a new context of Toleration, those in Dissenting denominations continued to battle for legitimacy against the marginalization that they were made to endure by an ascendant national Church. Beyond the political and civil challenges there remained serious theological disputes which perpetuated the division between the Church and Nonconformists. Owen who had been reared within the Church of England and had become persuaded of the merits of nonconformity entered the fray to defend Dissent on a number of occasions. His longest sustained effort in defense of Presbyterian ordination came as a result of a sermon he preached on the issue in 1694. As will be examined below, this sermon triggered a published controversy with an Anglican divine that lasted for more than five years. As early as 1681, he engaged in a public debate regarding the validity of Nonconformist ordination with, then Bishop of Worcester, William Lloyd.1 According to the account of James Owen’s brother Charles, Owen had been involved in a number of private meetings with the bishop who later requested a public hearing where Owen would “produce his reasons why he preach’d without ordination by Diocesan Bishops.”2 Owen was given less than a week to prepare for this public event but was given the freedom to enlist other ministers of his choosing to participate. For the purposes of this public moment, Owen called upon Philip Henry and Jonathan Roberts, both Nonconformists who had been educated at Oxford and ejected from the Church in 1662 as a result of the Act of Uniformity.3 Bishop Lloyd procured the services of his associate, Henry Dodwell, a well-known Anglican theologian and opponent of nonconformity.4 According to J.B. Williams, the biographer of both Philip and Matthew Henry, Philip attempted to have the meeting in private in front of only a select group. Instead, Bishop Lloyd, understanding the broader significance of the topic, kept it a public gathering but

1 Charles Owen, Some Account of the Life and Writings of the Late Pious and Learned Mr. James Owen (London: 1709), pp. 29ff. 2 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 30. 3 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 30. 4 Theodore Harmsen, “Dodwell, Henry (1641–1711),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019. Note also that Dodwell wrote against Baxter and accused him of being schismatic.

92

Ordination Controversy

promised that the Dissenters’ participation would not be used to cause them any harm.5 Charles Owen recorded that the central question of the debate was “whether ordination by such diocesans as have uninterrupted succession of canonical ordination down from the apostles, be so necessary that churches and ministry are null without it?”6 The question of the necessity of apostolic succession and the divine right of episcopacy was not new, but was once again becoming a significant point of contention, even within the Anglican church itself.7 The disputation which began at two o’clock in the afternoon lasted well into the night, ending some time before nine o’clock. In an appendix to his The Life of Mr. Philip Henry, Williams includes an incomplete transcription of the views expressed in the discussion. Accordingly, Owen was called upon to speak first and answer by what right he had taken on the call to ministry.8 After a deferential opening and a respectful acknowledgment of the Bishop’s kindness toward him, Owen said, “I was ordained by presbyters, whose ordination I look upon as valid; that which I insisted upon, as one of my first arguments.”9 Ordination then was examined from a number of perspectives, including the question of apostolic succession, the number of church offices taught in the scriptures, and the chronology of Paul’s first letter to Timothy especially in relation to Luke’s account in Acts 20. Williams offers a report of the tense and abrupt ending to the debate: A justice of the peace who was present was said to have spoken out, “we thank God we have the sword of power in our hands; and, by the grace of God, we will keep it [...] And, look to yourselves, gentlemen, by the grace of God, I will root you out of the country.” Another man apparently cried out in response, “Amen! Throw them down stairs.”10 The mayor of Oswestry made sure of their safe removal and the event came to an end.11 More than a decade later, this time after the Act of Toleration, Owen once again was involved in a controversy over the issue of the validity of Presbyterian ordination. In 1694, Owen published a work in defense of the legitimacy of non-Episcopal

5 Matthew Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, A.M. ed. J.B. Williams (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), p. 153. 6 Owen, Some Account of the Life, p. 31. 7 John Spurr, The Restoration of the Church of England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), pp. 105ff. 8 Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, p. 380. The full transcript is found in appendix XVII which runs from pp. 380–393. 9 Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, p. 381. 10 Henry, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, p. 154. 11 Mark Goldie refers to this incident and the public debate with Bishop Lloyd as an instance of Anglican pastoral coercion, “The Theory of Religious Intolerance in Restoration England,” in From Persecution to Toleration: The Glorious Revolution and Religion in England, ed. Ole Peter Grell, Jonathan I. Israel, and Nicholas Tyacke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 351–52.

The Evolution of the Defense of Episcopacy

ordinations, A Plea for Scripture Ordination (London, 1694). Approximately two years later, Thomas Gipps, the Anglican Rector of Bury responded with his own book, Tentamen Novum. For the next few years, the controversy between these two men stirred, although it took on a variety of shapes and colors. Eleven works were written between the two men, although only four pertained to the central theme of ordination. The other works, as will be shown, dealt with numerous other subjects, some only tangential to the conflict between the established Church and Dissent. Ultimately, the several publications highlighted radically different conceptions of the church, the pastorate, and sources of authority.

5.1

The Evolution of the Defense of Episcopacy

The question regarding the role of the episcopacy was not new to the late 17th Century. From the earliest days of the English Reformation, it was the monarch who was Supreme Governor of the Church and bishops acted as his or her ministers. Accordingly, the bishops had narrowly focused authority in the realm of preaching and teaching, and the power to ordain was understood to have come from the civil authority though it was an exclusive function of the bishop.12 It was not until the late 16th Century when Presbyterians urged reform of the Church of England that some began to teach the ius divinum of the Episcopacy, insisting that the role of the bishop was divinely instituted and scripturally warranted. According to John Spurr, the majority of those within the Church of England maintained an historical rather than scriptural defense of episcopacy, even at the time of Archbishop Laud. Since episcopacy belonged to the bene esse and not the esse of the church, there was not an absolute requirement to have bishops, allowing room for the continental Reformed churches to be viewed as true churches.13 Paul Bradshaw goes so far as to insist that “Whatever their views on the origin of episcopacy [...] hardly a single author can be found in the Elizabethan period who explicitly denied that priests could ordain. The Thirty-Nine Articles, for example, do not assert the necessity of episcopal ordination.”14 He goes on to assert that it was Thomas Bilson at the end of the 16th Century who was the “first to state that the grace given in ordination was transmitted through the apostolic succession.”15 It was not until the Interregnum and Restoration eras that a significant turn occurs in Anglican ecclesiology, and this by way of its defense against Roman Catholicism. 12 Spurr, The Restoration Church, p. 133. See also Paul F. Bradshaw, The Anglican Ordinal: Its History and Development from the Reformation to the Present Day (London: SPCK, 1971), pp. 9ff. 13 Spurr, The Restoration Church, p. 136. 14 Bradshaw, The Anglican Ordinal, p. 43. 15 Bradshaw, The Anglican Ordinal, pp. 45–46.

93

94

Ordination Controversy

Spurr notes a mid-seventeenth century shift both in the Roman Catholic attack on the Church of England and the Church of England’s apologetic response. Instead of focusing on accusations of heresy, Spurr argues that the debate moved more toward the topic of authority and the Church of England’s relationship to the Catholic Church.16 Suddenly, the Anglican argument for legitimacy concentrated on the episcopate and away from the monarch, emphasizing the equality and autonomy of bishops.17 From here, Anglican theologians like Henry Hammond began to emphasize the Apostolic institution of the episcopacy and the exclusive right of bishops to ordain.18 After the Restoration and a clear victory for Anglicanism with the passing of the Act of Uniformity 1662, it appears that there was a broad affirmation of the divine right of episcopacy, but an ambiguity remained about what this right actually meant—was episcopacy divinely permitted or divinely mandated?19 Intellectuals like Henry Dodwell were firm in their insistence that bishops were necessary as their unbroken line of succession was the only confirmation that the sacraments offered were in fact valid and effective.20 Important to keep in mind is that in addition to this religious authority the bishops sat in the House of Lords and wielded political authority as well.

5.2

The Controversialists

Thomas Gipps was an Anglican clergyman, ordained as both deacon and priest in 1667, after receiving both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree from Cambridge and serving as a fellow at Trinity College. Gipps went on to serve as a curate in Cambridgeshire and then as chaplain to the earl of Derby who offered Gipps the living of Bury Rectory in 1674. Gipps was no friend to Dissent and “associated religious dissent with political disloyalty [...].”21 His apparent distaste for nonconformity is revealed vividly in the various accusations found in his writings against Dissenters. The one major published debate from his career that remains extant is the debate over Presbyterian ordination with James Owen, examined below. 16 17 18 19 20

Spurr, The Restoration Church, p. 115. Spurr, The Restoration Church, pp. 113–20. Spurr, The Restoration Church, p. 138. Spurr, The Restoration Church, pp. 151–52. Spurr, The Restoration Church, p. 153. See also Robert D. Cornwall, Visible and Apostolic: The Constitution of the Church in High Church Anglican and Non-Juror Thought (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993), pp. 63–65. Unlike the scholarly attention given to Anglican offices and ordination, the ordination of Dissenters has largely been neglected in secondary sources, a neglect that this study aims to help rectify. 21 Catherine Nunn, “Gipps, Thomas (d. 1709),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http:// www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019.

The Controversialists

As will be discussed below, in this published controversy Gipps was responding not only to Owen but other Dissenters as well. He refers to Thomas Delaune’s A Plea for the Non-Conformists (1684) and the author’s particular accusation against the Church of England for not using the Hebrew titles to the Psalms in their liturgy. Delaune, who died in 1685 while in prison, had been the target of great persecution. Although born into a Roman Catholic Irish family, Delaune became a Particular Baptist having been influenced by Major Edward Riggs, founder of the Cork Baptist Church in Cork, Ireland. Settling in England due to the pressures of being a protestant among Catholic neighbors, Delaune eventually became a respected member of the London Particular Baptist community and co-authored a book with well-known Benjamin Keach called, Tropologia: a Key to Open Scripture Metaphors (1682). The work cited by Gipps is Delaune’s better known work and was his defense of nonconformity in response to the sermon of Benjamin Calamy, an Anglican minister and son of famed Nonconformist and ejected minister Edmund Calamy (1600–1666).22 Delaune’s defense of nonconformity and arguments in favor of separation from the Church of England led to the charge of sedition. He was found guilty and imprisoned because he was unable to pay the fine. Delaune’s wife and two children also joined him in prison and the conditions were such that the entire family died while there.23 Another “thorn in the flesh” for Gipps was the one he labeled “note-maker.”24 In 1695, an anonymous pamphlet was written entitled, Notes upon the Lord Bishop of Salisbury’s Four Late Discourses to the Clergy of His Doicess [sic] (London: 1695). By Gipps’ own admission it was this pamphlet that led him to respond with his A Sermon against corrupting the Word of God (London: 1697) which he preached in July 1696 in the presence of the bishop. He accuses Owen of not being the author of Remarks on a Sermon about Corrupting the Word of God (London: 1697), suggesting instead that the “note-maker” was the main author, though in conjunction with a group of other Dissenters. The actual “note-maker” was John Chorlton, a Presbyterian minister and tutor in Manchester. His connection to Owen is unclear. Owen was invited twice to assist Chorlton in Manchester, declining the offer both

22 Edmund Calamy (1600–1666) is the grandfather of Edmund Calamy (1671–1732) discussed earlier in chapter 3, author of the Abridgment of Richard Baxter’s Autobiography. Benjamin was the younger Calamy’s uncle. 23 Michael A. G. Haykin, “Delaune, Thomas (d. 1685),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed August 28, 2019. 24 Thomas Gipps, Remarks on Remarks: Or, the Rector of Bury’s Sermon Vindicated (London: 1698), p. 3.

95

96

Ordination Controversy

times. Beyond that, it is known that Chorlton was a respected friend of Matthew Henry, a close friend of Owen’s.25

5.3

The Controversy: 1694–1699

In 1694, in a sermon entitled A Plea for Scripture Ordination, James Owen expressed sorrow regarding the division between the Church of England and Dissent, adding that “Of all divisions, those amongst ministers have the saddest tendency; of all divisions of ministers, those that concern their ministerial call are the most destructive.”26 Owen offers hints regarding the tense atmosphere of the time by referring to Dissenters who question the legitimacy of the ordination of those ordained by bishops. Owen criticizes this position, noting that such an understanding would undermine these Dissenters’ very own baptisms and lead to Anabaptism.27 On the other hand, Owen describes and criticizes a variety of Anglican positions against Dissenting ordination, ranging from those who reject all non-episcopal ordinations to those who reject only those who were ordained by non-bishops where a bishop could be had.28 He begins by briefly addressing various areas of agreement between Anglicans and Dissent, including the divine origin of Gospel ministry and that there are qualifications involving both one’s life and ability for those who seek ordination. He then states the central difference: “The main difference is about the persons ordaining.”29 The question of greatest importance was whether or not presbyters were authorized to ordain. If one were to look for the “shots fired,” she would find them in the form of Owen’s description of the “diocesan bishops” of the Anglican Church: “that species of church officers which claim to themselves a superior power and jurisdiction above presbyters, and to be the sole pastors of several hundreds of congregations, having parish priests under them who have no power of discipline in the church.”30 Owen considered the office of diocesan bishop invalid, unbiblical, and a usurpation of authority that belonged only to the Lord. For Dissenters, the issue was plain:

25 David L. Wykes, “Chorlton, John (1666–1705),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http:// www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019; Mark Burden, A Biographical Dictionary of Tutors at the Dissenters’ Private Academies, 1660–1729 (London: Dr. Williams’ Centre for Dissenting Studies, 2013), pp. 106–113. Burden notes that the Notes attribution to Chorlton is uncertain. 26 James Owen, A Plea For Scripture Ordination (London: 1694), p. 4. 27 Owen, A Plea, pp. 4–5. 28 Owen, A Plea, 5. 29 Owen, A Plea, 8. 30 Owen, A Plea, p. 9.

The Controversy: 1694–1699

the Church of England had added unscriptural requirements for ordination, by an unscriptural “species of church officer,” leading to an unscriptural exclusion of “meer presbyters” from their rightful positions. The gauntlet had been thrown down. Within two years, Thomas Gipps had taken up the role of defender of the Anglican cause and responded to Owen’s sermon in a major treatise entitled Tentamen Novum (1696).31 In this “new attempt”32 Gipps argues for the validity of the diocesan bishop and asserts that presbyters are from a completely different order than bishops, one without the authority to ordain. He traces the histories of what he argues are the two orders of church office, those of the apostles and those of the deacons. In Gipps’ view, bishops receive their role and authority in uninterrupted succession from the apostles, while presbyters are the continuation of the line of the deacons.33 Gipps’ treatise includes an exposition of significant biblical passages from an Anglican perspective, definitions of key language used in the debate, and a section of direct responses to Owen’s sermon. Owen, not to be outdone, responded quickly with a lengthy work, Tutamen Evangelicum (1697), and a clever play on words in Latin which translated means, “protection of the Gospel.” In this treatment, Owen answers Gipps’ arguments, addressing the scriptural, historical, and theological implications of the Anglican position, as espoused by Gipps. That same year, Gipps delivered A Sermon Against Corrupting the Word of God (1697), in which he accused the Presbyterians of intentionally propagating a mistranslation of Acts 6:3, which, in Gipps’ estimation, would support a non-conformist view of ordination against Episcopal ordination. This sermon was both in response to an accusation against Anglicans leaving out Hebrew Psalm titles in their liturgy found in Delaune’s A Plea for the Non-conformists (1684) and an anonymous pamphlet, Notes upon the Lord Bishop of Salisbury’s Four Last Discourses (1695). Quickly, Owen wrote a short response, Remarks on a Sermon About Corrupting the Word of God (1697), in which he argues, among other things, that the mistranslation of Acts 6:3 in fact lends no support to the Presbyterian view, rendering Gipps’ complaints meritless. The exchanges between the two continued the following year with Gipps’ Remarks on the Remarks (1698), in which Gipps touches on a variety of issues including the role of tradition, the use of Apocrypha, and repeats a series of arguments concerning the mistranslation of Acts 6:3. In this work, Gipps accused Owen of not

31 Prior to Gipps response in 1696, John Thomas had already penned a lengthy answer to Owen’s A Plea, by February 1694, according to the dating of his preface. This work appears to have gone unpublished until George Hickes had it published in 1711. 32 The meaning of the title, Tentamen Novum, is “new attempt” or “new proof.” 33 Thomas Gipps, Tentamen Novum: Proving that Timothy and Titus were Diocesan Rulers of Ephesus and Crete (London: 1696), p. 6.

97

98

Ordination Controversy

being the sole author of Remarks on a Sermon About Corrupting the Word of God (1697), insinuating the existence of a Dissenting cabal of sorts, working together to undermine Episcopal authority. A year later, Owen responded with A Further Vindication (1699), affirming his sole authorship of the previous work as well as finetuning arguments against the alleged unscriptural terms of communion insisted upon by Gipps and the Church of England. The exchange between the two continued in Gipps’ The Further Vindication Considered in a Letter to a Friend (1699), Owen’s An Answer to the Rector of Bury’s Letter (1699), followed by two more works from Gipps, The Rector of Bury’s Reply (1699) and Tentamen Novum Continuatum (1699). The final works veered off the topic of ordination and legitimacy, instead focusing heavily on a discussion regarding the place of Hebrew sub-titles to the Psalms and a rehashing of the same lines of argumentation from earlier works. Although Owen did not publish a response at the time, after his death, Charles Owen published The Validity of the Dissenting Ministry: or, the Ordaining Powers of Presbyters evinced from the New Testament and Church History (London: 1716). This work had four parts, the first two of which were abridged and supplemented versions of James Owen’s A Plea and the controversy with Gipps. The third part was entitled “Ordination by Presbyters better than that by Diocesan Bishops. In Twelve Arguments,” and was a work begun by James Owen, completed and published by Charles Owen. The fourth part was “The History of ordination,” an incomplete work begun by James Owen and published in its incomplete state by Charles. The contents of these unfinished works suggest that Owen had intended two significant and full responses to Gipps’ works.

5.4

Major Themes of the Controversy

The Owen-Gipps debate eventually took on a life of its own, deviating from the central issue, turning to a variety of subjects only indirectly related to the question of ordination or the issue of legitimacy of Dissent. Yet, particularly, in the early stages of the exchange, significant and defining strands of argumentation were delineated. In some ways, Owen and Gipps were not equal sparring partners, the former seeming to have a far keener intellect and often more persuasive rhetoric. On the other hand, the two controversialists appear to represent their sides well, not only in content but approach. Gipps at times reveals an Episcopal exasperation with the Dissenters who refuse to show respect for their “superiors,” language he uses more than once. Both debaters, in the spirit of their age, used biting sarcasm and made numerous personal accusations, ranging from allegations of plagiarism and lying to denunciations of arrogance and simple-mindedness. A careful examination of their arguments exposes significantly disparate positions regarding ministry and authority, and equally the two espouse incongruent hermeneutics.

Major Themes of the Controversy

Before turning to the central themes of the controversy, a word regarding the approach of both authors is important. Although their use of the sources often differed, both aimed to convince their readers from scripture, history, and pragmatic considerations. The bulk of the biblical discussion centered around biblical language used to identify church offices (deacon, presbyter, bishop, etc.) and the chronology of Paul’s first epistle to Timothy as it relates to Paul’s final visit with the Ephesian elders which took place in Miletus (Acts 20). Gipps was adamant that 1 Timothy was written after the Acts 20 account and that Paul intended for Timothy to remain in Ephesus and act as a resident bishop. Owen was equally adamant that the reverse was the case and that Timothy was not to remain in Ephesus, noting that in 2 Timothy Paul summoned him to Rome. This particular topic of discussion took up tens of pages in the various works. The historical focus of the controversy was on whether the primitive church and early church fathers would have recognized diocesan bishops or rather had in view only local bishops who were equal to presbyters. The pragmatic issues were many and often led to ad hominem attacks emphasizing corruption in the Church of England or schism and sedition on the part of Dissenters. As mentioned above, there was an exchange between Owen and Gipps in a subordinate series of pamphlets written at the time of the ordination controversy. Although this series is considered in what follows along with the ordination controversy itself, in many respects, it was its own dispute per se. It began with Gipps’ accusation that Nonconformists had propagated a mistranslation of Acts 6:3 which favored the Presbyterian view of ordination by the people. Yet the discussion did not remain on this issue alone but wandered off topic to questions about the use of Hebrew Psalm titles in the Anglican liturgy, the value of sermons versus the reading of scripture in the worship service, and included an excess of personal attacks. The series extended to seven pamphlets and included the analysis of English translations of the Bible since the early seventeenth-century and fascinating rumors and anecdotes regarding the use of Acts 6:3 in defense of Nonconformist ordination. Although this particular subordinate series veered off topic, many of the major themes in conflict remained constant throughout. It is to those themes we now turn. 5.4.1 Disparate Views of Ministry Although the era of Toleration had begun, Dissenters still had the need to defend their legitimacy. Daniel Williams, whose brief epistle acts as a foreword to Owen’s initial foray into the written defense of nonconformity, captured well Owen’s (and other Nonconformists’) situation at the time, writing that Owen was “in a peculiar manner assaulted as an usurper of the ministerial office, because separated

99

100

Ordination Controversy

thereto by the imposition of no hands besides those of presbyters.”34 For Owen, the question of the legitimacy of ordination by presbyters went to the very heart of the Reformation, and perhaps even more, to the heart of his own ministry. Owen looked back to the precursors of the English Reformation, including the Waldensians, and asserted that it was their ministry that led many to the true Gospel, a ministry that was without Episcopal ordination. He emphasized the divine approbation of presbyterian ministry with rhetorical flourish: “They seal’d their ministry with their blood, and heaven sealed it with the most glorious success.”35 To Owen, ministry was a sacred calling and the idea that the ordination of so many faithful servants was being called into question was offensive. This passionate defense of Dissenting ministers is expressed throughout the debate with Gipps. In response to the accusation that Nonconformists were responsible for a false translation of Acts 6:3, Owen writes, “To declame with such bitterness against innocent men, as corrupters of the Word of God, and in the same breath to cite the Scriptures so corruptly, evidences more of a hatred to the Presbyterians, than of affection to the Word of God.”36 Owen often appeared to be defending his own sense of call when writing in defense of Dissent generally. The description of the ministry that Owen offered was compelling and revealed his deep conviction. He opened his sermon with the following: “The ministry of reconciliation is that powerful engine by which the strongholds of Satan are demolished, the gates of hell broken down, sin’s captives reduced, and trophies erected in honour of the victorious Prince of Peace.”37 Owen goes on to contend that, “For this reason it is that Gospel ministers are so much opposed in the world [...].”38 In defining this form of ministry, Owen emphasizes function over office and qualification over position, defining ministry more in terms of service than authority. In criticizing the Anglican Bishops’ use of the title “lord”, Owen asserted, “The apostles did not exercise any dominion over the consciences of men; they reckon’d themselves ministers, not lords.” He went on to add regarding the apostles, “They had the power of the Word, and not the sword.”39 For Owen, the sine qua non of the presbyter is his call to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, work that is of far greater importance than the work of ordination.40 Since presbyters were

34 35 36 37 38 39

Daniel Williams, “To the Reader,” in A Plea for Scripture Ordination by James Owen. Owen, A Plea, preface. James Owen, Remarks on a Sermon, about Corrupting the Word of God (London: 1697), p. 22. Owen, A Plea, pp. 1–2. Owen, A Plea, p. 2. James Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum: or, A Defence of Scripture Ordination (London: 1697), p. 9. 40 Owen, A Plea, pp. 51ff.

Major Themes of the Controversy

undoubtedly given the right and role to preach, baptize, and administer the Lord’s Supper, Owen, according to a fortiori logic, maintains that they are also given the right to ordain.41 The power to ordain is “annext to their office as ministers,” Owen writes, as is evidenced by the fact that the Catholic church did not willingly give such power to the original reformers, yet every protestant assumed was their right.42 For Owen, the ministry is defined by the high calling and function, centered on the Word and Sacraments, grounded in the gifting and qualifying work of the Holy Spirit.43 To remove the ordination of faithful men, called by the Spirit, by insisting on a man-made ordination by an office unseen in scripture (that of Diocesan bishop) caused outrage to Owen. With the right to minister comes the right to ordain others for ministry as well. The functional aspect of ministry was foundational for Owen. As he considered the high calling of the presbyter, he repeatedly noted the superiority of Word and Sacrament to ordination, which Protestants do not consider a sacrament. In criticizing the lack of power of the parish priest within the Episcopalian system, Owen revealed essential pastoral duties: the proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline.44 He noted that many Anglican clergy themselves were troubled by the fact that their parish priests did not have the power to conduct those pastoral duties responsibly, calling this their “tender concern for souls under their charge [...].”45 This pastoral concern was of the utmost significance for Owen and for Nonconformists generally. Those who preach, Owen maintains, are called workers together with God, leading him to ask: “[...] is an ordainer more than this?” Those who baptize participate in the sacrament which dedicates people to God and allows entrance into the covenant community; ordination dedicates people to God only for a particular task.46 Those who administer the Lord’s Supper, are able to consecrate holy things—“Now which is greater,” Owen asks, “to impose hands, or to make the sacramental body and blood of Christ? If they have power to consecrate holy things, why not holy persons also?”47 Owen emphasized the fact that Presbyterian ordination is only given to those who are qualified as preachers as opposed to Anglicans who, at times, ordain “meer readers.”48 He states further, according to

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Owen, A Plea, p. 53. Owen, A Plea, p. 59. Owen, A Plea, p. 86. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, pp. 27–28. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 28. Owen, A Plea, p. 52. Owen, A Plea, p. 53. James Owen, The Validity of the Dissenting Ministry: or, the Ordaining Powers of Presbyters evinced from the New Testament and Church History (London: 1716), published posthumously by Charles Owen, p. 145.

101

102

Ordination Controversy

Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, that the great apostle places the preaching of the gospel above all other functions. This being the case, how is it that one who is clearly called to preach the gospel (the presbyter) is not allowed to do the lesser task of ordaining? Furthermore, Owen reasons from the great commission given through Christ himself, that the function of teaching is superior to ordaining, a task not even mentioned in this foundational moment of commissioning.49 Again, Owen’s focus was on the function of the ministry, not the authority. In his unpublished comparison between Presbyterian and Episcopal ordination, Owen writes, “We don’t swear those we ordain to yield obedience to their ordainers, as Protestant and Popish Bishops do.”50 For Owen, obedience belonged to Christ and service to his people. Owen additionally made the strong assertion that ordination itself is an aspect of what Christ calls the “keys to the kingdom,” which presbyters were given. Owen insisted that the “keys” must include the authority to ordain, otherwise ordination would be left to fall under secular authority, something he feared the Church of England was guilty of. As a matter of fact, Owen pointed out that the role of the bishop as responsible for ordaining came from the magistrate and not from scripture. Presbyters have the “key of doctrine,” apparently undisputed among both ministers of the established Church and Dissent. Therefore, Owen submits, presbyters must also have the “key of jurisdiction and order,” which includes ordination, since the keys are given together and must not be separated.51 In his unfinished history of ordination, Owen traced the development of the hierarchical structure of the church and explained how the role of bishop as greater than the presbyter evolved. Although left incomplete, he intended to expand on the issue under his twelfth proposition: “The bishops reserv’d to themselves the more honourable parts of the ministry (as ordination of ministers, consecration of churches, confirmation, vailing of virgins, excommunication) and left the more toilsom and troublesom [sic] to the presbyters, as the power of preaching, and administring [sic] the sacraments.”52 Certainly Owen was again using the power of sarcasm to make emphatic his disdain for the Anglican focus on authority. Although the Church of England accepted the ordination of Rome, Owen argued that the ordination of Dissenters was superior to the ordination of Rome, emphasizing further his functional understanding of ministry. He expressed consternation regarding the Anglican acceptance of Roman Catholic ordination since Rome’s clergy did not fulfill any of the significant functions presbyters are called to, nor did they have the scriptural qualifications necessary for ministry. According to 49 50 51 52

Owen, A Plea, p. 53. Owen, The Validity of Dissenting Ministry, p. 182. Owen, A Plea, pp. 101–103. Owen, The Validity of Dissenting Ministry, pp. 279–80.

Major Themes of the Controversy

Owen, as a convinced Protestant, it should have been clear that Catholic clergy had faulty doctrine and did not have the character requirements stipulated by scripture for presbyters and were therefore not qualified for ministry. Yet, the Church of England recognized the ordination of Catholic priests but did not recognize the ordinations of Dissenting ministers. Owen was dumbfounded: “Shall the sworn enemies of Reformation be received as ministers of Christ, and the ministers of the Reformation be rejected as no ministers?”53 He pointed to the “sacerdotal work” of the Roman priests in contrast to the “essentials of ministry” (again, Word and Sacrament) that the Dissenting clergy were actively engaged in, and was in disbelief that the former “are taken for true ministers in the church of England [...].”54 In attempting to uncover plainly this particularly heinous implication of the Anglican view of ordination, Owen asked, “Can anything be more absurd than that the ministers of Antichrist, should make true ministers, and the ministers of Christ make false prophets by one and the same ordaining act.”55 Owen alludes to the process by which Dissenting ministers were ordained, noting that “our candidates are admitted upon sufficient trial of their qualifications [...] and nothing is required of them but obedience to the laws of Christ [...].”56 Owen draws attention to the doctrinal corruption of the Roman Church and the misplaced emphasis on sacramentalism, rather than the true call of a minister. He writes, Let a person ordained by presbyters be never so well qualified, be never so faithful in the discharge of his office; let another person that is ordained by a bishop, be never so defective in qualifications, suppose a reading curate who cannot preach, let him be never so prophane in his life, yet this man must pass for a true minister, because he had the ineffectual blessing of bishop, and the other a meer usurper, and all his, administrations must be null and void, for want of this ceremony.57

In fact, Owen considered this view of ordination as yet another usurpation of God’s authority, since it placed a man’s ceremonial blessing over the gifting of the Holy Spirit. He suggested that the Anglican acceptance of Roman Catholic ordination implied agreement that Roman bishops are successors of the Apostles. For Owen, “This is to ascribe greater virtue to the fingers of a prelate in making ministers, then to the Spirit of God.”58

53 54 55 56 57 58

Owen, A Plea, p. 71. Owen, A Plea, p. 84. Owen, A Plea, p. 72. Owen, A Plea, p. 82. Note the emphasis on the sole Lordship of Christ as law-giver in His church. Owen, A Plea, p. 86. Owen, A Plea, pp. 85–86.

103

104

Ordination Controversy

Gipps, who took on the role of defender of the Church of England, responded to Owen’s claims with a historical retelling of what he considered two distinct orders within the church: the order of the apostles and the order of the deacons. According to Gipps, the order of the apostles was handed down to those who became bishops and the order of the deacons was later recognized as the elders and presbyters.59 Gipps identified Timothy and Titus with the office of evangelist, which he defined as the disciples of the apostles,60 concluding that evangelists had the highest earthly office which they passed on to the bishops.61 He identified Timothy and Titus as being “supreme rulers” of their churches and commissioned by Paul to govern.62 He criticized Presbyterian ecclesiology for not having a head.63 Central to Gipps’ view was that authority comes with the office, which could only be received through one in a superior position. The hierarchical nature of church leadership and the significance of office over function is made more evident in Gipps’ understanding of an ecclesiastical order. Early in his first response to Owen’s A Plea, Gipps defended ecclesiastical orders by appealing to the disciples’ need to select a replacement for Judas Iscariot, to complete the order of the Twelve, as it were.64 There was something significant about the position of apostle, which brought with it a particular authority which could not be obtained outside of that specific office. Such hierarchy, according to Gipps, is seen even within the angelic realm.65 When the apostles were departing from regions in which they founded churches and when they became too busy to be able to handle oversight of all such churches, “they substituted in their rooms, successors and single persons to preside over the churches [...].”66 It was to the bishops that such oversight was handed with due authority. One aspect of this authority found in the order of the apostles was the power to ordain: “The government of the Church, therefore, and ordination, was lodg’d in the apostles only, or as supreme: for Philip ordain’d ’em not, laid not his hands upon them, no not with the apostles; though he had the power of dispensing the Word and Sacraments yet not of ordaining.”67 Gipps disagreed with Owen’s assessment that the ministry of doctrine was greater than ministry of order, adamantly insisting that ordaining was the highest role of

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 6. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, pp. 130–131. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 121. Gipps, Tentamen Novum Continuatum. Or, an Answer to Mr. Owen’s Plea and Defence (London: 1699), p. 16. Gipps, Tentamen Novum Continuatum, pp. 14–5. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 2. Gipps, Tentamen Novum Continuatum, p. 25. Gipps, Tentamen Novum Continuatum, p. 21. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 7.

Major Themes of the Controversy

shepherding.68 Furthermore, Gipps advocated obedience to the order of bishops, just as the people during the New Testament era obeyed the apostles.69 Ministry, for Gipps, was authority over the sheep; for Owen, ministry was service to the sheep. 5.4.2 Sources of Authority The disparate positions of the two controversialists were not limited to the topic of ministry. With regard to sources of authority, the two clergymen found themselves at opposite ends of the spectrum within Protestantism. Prominent in their published works was the question of the role of scripture, the significance of both the succession and order of the apostles, and the place of conscience and private judgment. The Role of Scripture

Central to the controversy, Owen addressed the Anglican insistence on ordination by a diocesan bishop. A diocesan bishop was an overseer whose jurisdiction consisted of multiple local parishes, even into the hundreds. Gipps and other contemporaries in the Church of England believed that the natural order of the church required diocesan bishops for valid ordination except in special cases, when bishops were unavailable. The title of “bishop” itself was of no particular importance, only that there was an office which held authority over regular presbyters.70 Owen, in adamant disagreement, indicted the very legitimacy of the Anglican practice of having dioceses ruled by authoritative bishops and argued for the parity of all clergy. He identified the hierarchy within the Church of England with the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical structure: “Our English Episcopacy hath scarce one argument for it’s defence, but what will indifferently serve the Popish prelacy.”71 For Owen, the issue was clear; scripture never distinguished between presbyters and bishops, using the titles interchangeably. Therefore, the idea of a diocesan bishop was neither supported nor even addressed in scripture. Owen defined the diocesan bishop as “that species of church officers which claim to themselves a superior power and jurisdiction above presbyters [...].”72 This alleged self-authorization was fundamentally at odds with Owen’s understanding of scripture’s authority. He clarified: “By valid, I mean not what the old canons make so, but what the scriptures determine to be so. Those sacred oracles which are of divine inspiration, and not arbitrary canons 68 69 70 71 72

Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 174. Gipps, Tentamen Novum Continuatum, p. 3. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 78. Owen, A Plea, p. 17. Owen, A Plea, p. 9.

105

106

Ordination Controversy

of weak men’s devising, are the foundation of our faith, and the infallible standard by which truth and errour must be tried.”73 Scripture must be the authority and any unscriptural requirement placed upon those who seek ordination was a usurpation of Christ’s authority by the Church and the real cause of schism.74 For Owen, the Episcopal form of hierarchical church government was not supported in the scriptures and, therefore, such requirements founded upon Episcopacy should not be binding on the consciences of believers. Gipps’ position was twofold: (1) the office of bishop was established by the apostles themselves in response to divisions that had arisen, first in Corinth, and later elsewhere;75 and (2) that the office of bishop carries with it such authority as to be able to rule over the scripturally undefined areas, including such rites as recorded in the Book of Common Prayer. Gipps blamed the division experienced within England on the refusal of Dissenters to submit to the bishops’ authority: “In short, I know no way of healing our breaches but that every man should obey them that have the rule over ’em in all lawful things, q.d. which are not forbidden by God. For why should anyone presume to scruple or call that unclean, which the Lord has not made so? They are much more superstitious who abhor a surplice, than they who wear it.”76 The Anglican claim was simple—they too believed in the authority of scripture, but that which was not forbidden by scripture could be required by the authority of those entrusted with leadership over the church. Owen responded with a three-fold challenge to Gipps: (1) first, Owen challenged Gipps to prove that Church rulers were given the authority by Christ to “fix unscriptural terms of Christian communion;” (2) second, he asked Gipps to show that things that are simply not forbidden by scripture can be required as terms of communion; and (3) third, he questioned “who must judge what is lawful, what not?” Gipps’ arguments appeared to Owen to be equally valid for the Roman Catholic claim against the Reformed: “Let the Rector take which side of the question he please, he must either acquit the Dissenters or justify the Papists.”77 The division was not simply a question of the Bible’s authority but rather a question of hermeneutical principles: is a direct command required in order to add a rite to worship or is it simply sufficient that there be no prohibition against such an element? With regard to the question of office, Owen was persuaded that the scriptures refer to only one office with the same rights and responsibilities when using the

73 Owen, A Plea, pp. 9–10. 74 Owen, A Plea, p. 6. Owen takes the accusation of schism, commonly used against the Dissenters, and turns it against the Church of England. 75 Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 124. 76 Gipps, Remarks on Remarks, p. 30. 77 James Owen, A Further Vindication of the Dissenters from the Rector of Bury’s unjust accusations (London: 1703), p. 8.

Major Themes of the Controversy

titles bishop and presbyter. Any insistence on a distinction between the two was unwarranted and contrary to God’s Word;78 such a claim finds its justification outside of scripture. He went so far as to say that English Episcopacy was “destructive to the Scripture and primitive form” and, furthermore, “that it is a human creature which grew up as the Man of Sin did, and owes it’s being to the meer favour of secular powers [...].”79 Owen was convinced that the English Episcopacy’s power was grounded in human governing authorities which he believed to be an improper blending of church and state. He conceded that the strongest argument in favor of bishops as superior to presbyters was that such positions were authorized by the laws of England and the civil magistrate.80 But, Owen declared that even pagans understood that an admixture of the religious and secular was against reason: “The very light of nature, taught the heathen that the service of the gods, and attendance upon secular imployments were inconsistent.”81 To bolster this indictment, Owen turned to the ancient canons which he demonstrated would condemn all contemporary English bishops by virtue of the identity of those who put them in office: “The ancient canons, call’d the Apostles, which are confirmed by the sixth General Council at Constantinople, do depose all bishops that are chosen by the civil magistrate.”82 Bishops who were at all active in civil affairs were also censured by the old canons and were to be deposed,83 a view affirmed by Wycliffe, who believed “that it was a mortal sin for clergy-man to exercise civil dominion.”84 Therefore, since the bishops receive their superior authority by an authority other than Christ Himself, Owen denied the validity of that authority. Gipps, although ostensibly affirming a high view of scripture, agreed with Owen’s accusation that the order of bishops is established, in a sense, beyond the boundaries of scripture: Bishops as a distinct species of church officers, were not as yet established according to my hypothesis. The itinerant or unfixt evangelists (being the apostles disciples according to Eusebius) govern’d the churches under the apostles; and ordain’d elders for ‘em. And thus continu’d until the apostles setled fixt governours of the churches out of their disciples, who were also call’d evangelists; and were succeeded by other governours, who assum’d only the inferiour title of bishop [...].85

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Owen, A Plea, pp. 11ff. Owen, A Plea, pp. 31–2. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. a3v. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 16. Owen, A Plea, p. 162. Owen, A Plea, p. 163. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 14. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, pp. 130–131.

107

108

Ordination Controversy

Relying heavily on Ignatius’ letters, Gipps emphasized the fact that Ignatius wrote within a decade of the passing of John the Apostle. Gipps cited extensively from various epistles of Ignatius which reveal a particularly high view of the bishop and his authority, to which Gipps adds: “It cannot with reason be thought that so holy a Christian bishop and martyr should himself dare so much as attempt an alteration of government in the church, which was contrary to the mind of Christ, or of his apostles [...].”86 If Ignatius affirmed it, it must have been acceptable to the apostles who came before him, so declared Gipps. To the role of scripture was now being added the role of the ancient fathers. Elsewhere in the controversy Gipps acknowledged his recognition of numerous “rules of faith,” especially what he labeled “universal tradition.”87 He defined universal tradition as that which finds universal testimony in the churches, a form of catholicity, though he did not use the term. Gipps challenged Owen to explain his own faith and reason for hope, concluding that “He can never do it without the help of tradition,”88 revealing a significant source of authority that is extra-biblical. The approved practices of the early church carried great weight for Gipps and Anglicanism. In line with his position on tradition, Gipps held to the openness of the canon, at least theoretically. He writes: “And is Mr. Owen certain we shall not have more Divine Revelations before the end of the world? I expect ’em as little as he: but ‘tis one thing to suppose it possible, and another to look for it as probable or promis’d.”89 Gipps was persuaded that the historical practices of the church ought to direct and guide the current practices, so long as they were not against scripture. Owen resolutely opposed such a position, especially Gipps’ use of the language of “rules of faith.” It is worth reproducing Owen here at length: Would you think it, that a Protestant divine, should talk thus ignorantly of the blessed Scriptures? Are the precepts in Plato and Seneca, as excellent as those of the Holy Bible? Can he find such high strains and noble flights of piety in pagan authors, as in the inspired writings? A man that has felt the power of God’s Word renewing, quickning, comforting and strengthening his heart, will acknowledge the vast difference between inspired and humane writings, and resolve his faith into the authority of God, who speaks powerfully and feelingly unto our consciences by his Spirit in the Scriptures, which have signatures of their Divine original upon them, that no book besides can lay claim to.90

86 87 88 89 90

Gipps, Tentamen Novum, pp. 60–61. Gipps, Remarks on Remarks, p. 29. Gipps, Remarks on Remarks, p. 29. Gipps, Remark on Remarks, p. 23. Owen, A Further Vindication, p. 6.

Major Themes of the Controversy

For Owen, scripture was the only rule of faith and to give any other authority the title was to diminish the Bible’s role. There was another revealing exchange between the two adversaries. In an argument against the tradition of having diocesan bishops, Owen pointed to the emphasis on the local church that was found in both scripture and the early fathers. He showed that it was not the dioceses that were the focus but rather presbyters of local gatherings of believers. In addressing the Anglican rebuttal that the angels of the Asian churches in the early chapters of the book of Revelation are bishops, Owen noted that even these churches did not have the structure of dioceses but of local, more parochial, churches.91 Furthermore, Timothy and Titus cannot have been said to oversee dioceses, as found in England, but rather local churches with “one altar,” according to Ignatius himself.92 Owen understood Ignatius’ “one altar” to refer to one place of gathering for the members of the church. However, in a creative and revealing response, Gipps counters that Ignatius’ “one altar” refers not to one location in which the church gathered for the Lord’s Supper, but rather to one bishop and all those who adhere to his rule.93 He states that there were many “particular altars” but “one altar.” He goes on to explain, “For they were all one body, subject to one bishop, and all partakers of that then one bishop.”94 Here, Gipps came very close to identifying the bishop as the church, which was Owen’s great complaint: bishops being given unscriptural power, authority, and honor. Owen writes, “All this is ingeniously acknowledged by the Council of Hispalis—Let the presbyters know that the power of ordaining presbyters and deacons is forbidden them by the Apostolical See, by virtue of novel ecclesiastical constitutions. They add, that this was done to bear up the dignity of the bishops.”95 In other words, Owen was convinced that the origin of the order of diocesan bishop was man-made and, therefore, invalid; and if the order of bishops is invalid, then the ordination of Dissenters could not be questioned on grounds of being non-episcopal. In a particularly insightful early section of Tutamen Evangelicum (1697), Owen tied the removal of power from presbyters and the development of church hierarchy to the growing practice of consecrating sacred buildings.96 Owen showed that such practices came subsequent to the writing of the New Testament, indicating a practice that is beyond scripture. Owen’s position, as seen above, was that practices that are

91 92 93 94 95 96

Owen, A Plea, pp. 34ff. Owen, A Plea, p. 29. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 150. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 150. Owen, A Plea, p. 161. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, preface. Note also that the year of his death, Owen published a book entitled, The History of the Consecration of Altars, Temples and Churches (London: 1706), in which Owen argues that the Christian church is after the pattern of the synagogue and not the temple.

109

110

Ordination Controversy

beyond scripture cannot be binding on the consciences of Christians, which would constitute an unlawful appropriation of the role of Christ’s Lordship by the bishops. Moreover, Owen traced ecclesiastical history within England, arguing that parity among the clergy had been the practice from before the time of the Waldenses, obviously predating the establishment of the Anglican Church.97 Finally, Owen asserted, “The truth is, this notion of the Jus Divinum of episcopacy, as a superiour order, was first promoted in the church of England by arch-bishop Laud,”98 and he went further to say that Gipps’ personal position was not in line with “moderate and learned” Anglicans such as Richard Hooker and Archbishop Usher. 99 The source of episcopal authority, according to Owen, was man not God and therefore it was not binding. Succession and the Order of Apostles

Apostolic succession, the transfer of power and authority through the apostles to the bishops, was very significant to Gipps’ understanding of Anglican ordination. As discussed above, Gipps held to a two-order understanding of the ministry: the order of the apostles which became the order of bishops and the order of deacons which became the order of presbyters. In analyzing a variety of passages from the scriptures, Gipps attempted to locate and identify the unique authority held by the apostles. He asserted, based on passages from the book of Acts, that only the apostles were able to offer the Holy Spirit to others, an act Gipps considered similar (if not equivalent) to ordination.100 Although he acknowledged that sometimes Christian prophets did participate in ordinations, these ordinations were of a different kind. Such ordinations were by virtue of “divine revelation” whereas ordinarily apostles ordained by virtue of their “office.”101 For Gipps this distinction was significant as it revealed that the order of the apostles was vested with authority not given to any other order. God established his church through hierarchical ecclesiastical offices. From the fact that Philip, one of the first deacons, was unable to offer the Holy Spirit to others, though clearly in possession of the Holy Spirit himself, Gipps concludes: “’Tis then reasonable hence to collect, that everyone that has any gift has not power to confer it, and that all that are ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacraments, cannot themselves ordain.”102 Only the apostles and their successors, the bishops, were authorized by God to ordain. Office and authority were held together closely.

97 98 99 100 101 102

Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 34. Owen, A Plea, p. 115. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. A4v. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 8. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, pp. 10ff. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p.13.

Major Themes of the Controversy

Gipps was critical of those who ministered without formal ordination, indicting the Independents for their practices, depreciating the role of both the inward call and the church congregation’s role in inviting a minister: “That what inward call soever any person pretends to, or whatever gifts and abilities he lays claim to, and though a people shall chuse him for their pastor and spiritual guide, nevertheless he ought to be ordain’d.”103 Gipps often diminished the role of the people and found various forms of congregationalism highly offensive.104 He held that, in fact, the episcopate came out of the problem of schism, affirming St. Jerome: “Presbyter and bishop (says he) were the same thing, before schisms arose in religion by the Devil’s instigation, and before the people cry’d out, one, I am of Paul, another, I am of Apollos, and a third, I am of Cephas […].”105 According to Gipps, the divisions among the people and their desire to attach themselves to and identify with one of the elders led the apostles to select one elder above the others, to thwart schisms. That appointed elder, above the rest, would become the bishop, fully conferred with authority to rule over the others. This, he presumes, comes from Paul’s challenging interaction with the Corinthians: The apostle, doubtless then, seeing divisions arising everywhere (not only at Corinth) weighed the matter well, and ask’d counsel of God what he should do. And in the end concluded (all the world agreeing thereto according to Ignatius and Jerom) to set one presbyter over the rest to prevent the mischief of schism, God so appointing it, 1 Tim. 1:18.106

To such an appointment both Timothy and Titus were called and from them Gipps and the Church of England got their examples. Authority comes through individuals, not the corporate gathering, since it was the corporate gathering’s schismatic tendencies that led to the need for this hierarchical structure. Individual bishops then pass on the apostolic authority through episcopal ordination. Gipps argued that it was unnecessary to have a detailed list of uninterrupted apostolic succession to validate episcopacy but rather only a “strong presumption and moral assurance” of such an unbroken succession.107

103 Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 36. 104 Thomas Gipps, A Sermon Against Corrupting the Word of God (London: 1697), pp. 21ff. Gipps’ complaint in this sermon was specifically regarding a mistranslation of a passage he suggested put the authority of ordination in the people’s hands. Gipps alleged that this mistranslation was promoted by Dissenters. 105 Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 91. 106 Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 92. 107 Gipps, Tentamen Novum, preface.

111

112

Ordination Controversy

Owen repudiated apostolic succession for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Paul did not make such a succession clear as he parted with the Ephesian elders for the last time in Acts 20. Owen wrote, “If ministry and churches depend upon this succession, ‘twas no small part of the counsel of God to be declar’d unto them.”108 Instead, Owen points out, Paul appointed multiple elders to oversee the flock in Ephesus. Owen targeted the question of the interruption of succession. Assurance of succession, according to Owen, must include certainty (1) that the position was not falsely received by the ordainer, (2) that the ordaining bishop’s ordination was not “void by canon,” and (3) that all ordinations since the time of the apostles have been in order as well.109 In other words, Owen insisted that for succession to be compelling, it must be proven not only that the line be apostolic but also that it be an unbroken line. He added that the interruptions “mention’d by historians,” including those that pertain to the papacy, must be disproved in order for there to be a semblance of assurance with regard to the succession’s validity.110 For Owen, such assurance was not possible and therefore authority based on apostolic succession could not be relied upon. Owen added a functional argument against Apostolic Succession within the Church of England: When I see bishops immediately sent of God, infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, travelling to the remotest kingdoms to preach the Gospel in their own language to the infidel nations, and confirming their doctrine by undoubted miracles, I shall believe them to be the apostles true successors in Apostolical office.111

Owen suggested that authority is not in the office but in the ministry of the Word. His functional view of ministry differed greatly from the office-centered position of Gipps. Conscience and Private Judgement

According to Owen, the Church of England sought to have dominion over the consciences of the people, a dominion that is squarely rebuked by the Lord himself for those in his own kingdom.112 Just as he contested the Anglican practice of giving bishops the title “lord,” Owen insisted that “The apostles did not exercise dominion over the consciences of men; they reckon’d themselves ministers, not lords. They had

108 109 110 111 112

Owen, A Plea, p. 25. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 30. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, pp. 30–31. Owen, A Plea, p. 57. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 10.

Major Themes of the Controversy

the power of the Word, not the sword.”113 This characteristic Dissenting principle emphasized the Lordship of Christ over his own kingdom and condemned the use of “carnal” weapons within a spiritual domain.114 Persuasion not coercion was to be the instrument by which people were shepherded. Gipps, on the other hand, believed that the right to private interpretation or conscience was a tantamount to diminishing of the Word of God, equating the Roman view of the pope’s infallibility to the Dissenting view of the right to private judgment. Both of those positions, in his estimation, were a diminishing of the light of scripture.115 He accused those who “make such mighty boasts of the Spirit of God” of being more likely to add to scripture than any others, presumably an indictment of Dissenters who preferred spontaneity in worship rather than forms.116 Gipps never developed a clear articulation of where an authoritative interpretation of scripture would come from, but some elements can be inferred from his writings. In emphasizing the role of bishops, he used language that implied a profound level of episcopal authority. Speaking of Paul leaving Timothy as bishop of Ephesus, Gipps wrote, “In short, the dying apostle seems now to be making his last will, leaving Timothy in the sole and full possession of the Ephesian church.”117 He later summarized his thoughts about Ephesus: “In short, nothing can be more manifest, than that this church was governed by one single person over the rest [...].”118 Gipps also quoted Ignatius affirmingly: “[...] I exhort that you study to do all things in divine concord, your bishop presiding in the place of God [...]. Be ye united to the bishop, and to those who preside over you, for a pattern and document of incorruption.”119 In his final publication in the debate, Gipps argued that it is acceptable for the church to “restrain the liberty of believers” in a few instances, if it is for the good of the fellowship, citing the Jerusalem Council’s decision as evidence in support.120 He insisted that the freedom offered by the Council to the Gentiles in Christ did not inherently waive the rights of the apostles to rule or insist on certain commands. The Jerusalem Council’s “three canons” are referenced as proof that their authority was intact, even with the Christian freedom given to the Gentiles.121

113 Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 9. 114 This very issue arose within the Church of England two decades later in the Bangorian controversy (see chapter 1). 115 Thomas Gipps, A Sermon Against Corrupting the Word, p. 19. 116 Gipps, Remarks on Remarks, p. 23. Earlier in this same work, Gipps appears to tie Owen and nonconformists to the infamous Puritan exorcist, John Darrel (p. 17). 117 Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 55. 118 Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 62. 119 Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 68. 120 Gipps, Tentamen Novum Continuatum, p. 2. 121 Gipps, Tentamen Novum Continuatum, p. 3.

113

114

Ordination Controversy

Elsewhere, Gipps offered further insight into his understanding of the Church’s authority (and by church’s he appears to mean “bishop’s”) in this diatribe against Richard Baxter: If to speak evil of the rulers of the people, to be continually declaiming against superiors, undermining and overturning governments, speaking evil of dignities, snarling at their laws, spurning against their commands, deriding their conduct, triumphing over their misfortunes, and being never at ease, but when he was embroiling the peace of the nation; if such a man may be stil’d great, let Mr. Baxter have the honour.122

The leadership of both church and state are “rulers,” “superiors,” and “dignities” that ought not be undermined. This passage also reveals hints of Gipps’ view of the interconnectedness of the church and state and the political implications of dissent. In the preface to Tentamen Novum (1696), as he defended Anglican ecclesiology, Gipps wrote, “In general, let it be observ’d, that our episcopal government is establish’d upon certain canons and laws made and consented unto by the convocation, consisting of bishops and presbyters, and by the multitude of believers, that is, their representatives in parliament.”123 For Gipps, the authority of the church and the authority of the state were codependent, intertwined from the very origin of Anglicanism. Closely related to the issue of conscience is the role of the people in selecting and affirming those called into the Christian ministry. Owen commended Dissenting ordinations in part because they “[...] are not obtruded upon the people without their choice and consent [...].”124 The Dissenters believed that the biblical mandate was to include the people in the process of choosing those who were to be ordained, or set apart, by the elders. Owen asserted, “The apostles made elders in every church with the suffrages of the people. So χειροτονήσαντες (which we render, ordain’d, Acts 14.23.) signifies, the multitude of believers chose the deacons (whom Mr. G. wou’d have to be the same with these elders) before the apostles ordain’d them […].”125 Yet for Gipps, the people’s significant involvement in the selection of those who would be ordained was precisely the concern. He insisted that it was Dissenters who intentionally mistranslated Acts 6:3 in order to allow the people more power in ordination.126 Gipps saw any increase in the power of the people as a threat to the authority of both the church and the state.

122 123 124 125 126

Gipps, Remark on Remarks, p. 61. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. a4v. Owen, A Plea, p. 82. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 75. Gipps, Remark on Remarks, pp. 43ff.

Major Themes of the Controversy

5.4.3 Hermeneutical Distinctives Near the end of the preface to Remarks on a Sermon (1697), Owen suggested a way forward for unity between the Church of England and Dissent. He first acknowledged agreement with Gipps with regard to the way Gipps asserted “the sufficiency, perspicuity and supream authority of the scriptures [...].” But Owen went on to add, “Were this principle practically acknolwedg’d, it would soon heal our breaches, by disposing men to lay aside the unscriptural terms of Christian communion, which have been the fatal engines of disunion and schism.”127 In a biting response, Gipps countered Owen’s claim regarding the path to unity: “Time was when episcopacy was exploded, and the unscriptural terms of communion here complain’d of laid aside; but were our breaches soon healed? It was so far from that, that they were not healed at all, nor will be upon the Presbyterian and Congregational principles.”128 Gipps, of course, was alluding to the Commonwealth and the divisions that remained while Presbyterians were ascendant. And then in a revealing statement he added, “In short, I know no way of healing our breaches but that every man should obey them that have the rule over ’em in all lawful things, q.d. which are not forbidden by God. For why should any one presume to scruple or call that unclean, which the Lord has not made so? They are much more superstitious who abhor the surplice, than they who wear it.”129 A fundamental disagreement between Owen and Gipps centered on this question of how the scriptures bear upon the question of worship. Must all that is done in worship be commanded or simply not forbidden? Owen agreed with the former, Gipps the latter. Owen considered Gipps’ positions regarding both scripture and tradition to be untenable for a Protestant divine. The published controversy between the two men involved a great deal of expositional work from both Gipps and Owen, including extended discussions regarding New Testament chronology and the timing of Paul’s letters. Both debaters desired to show that they were faithful exegetes, culling the depths of the scriptures to make their arguments. As alluded to earlier, Gipps’ view was that the canon was not necessarily closed and that the practices and traditions of the church were to be highly valued. Owen, on the other hand, worked within a paradigm that insisted on clear biblical proscriptions for anything that would be required of believers.130 These distinct methods led to vastly different conclusions.

127 128 129 130

Owen, Remaks on a Sermon, preface. Gipps, Remarks on Remarks, p. 30. Gipps, Remarks on Remarks, p. 30. Owen, Remarks on a Sermon, preface. Owen responded here to Gipps’ uncertainty about the closing of the canon by sarcastically concluding that the dissenters are content with the closed canon and so he “shall leave this point to be concerted between the rector and the Quakers.”

115

116

Ordination Controversy

With regard to the position of bishop, the two controversialists were on opposite sides of the spectrum. Owen argued that the New Testament makes no distinction between presbyters and bishops, often using the language interchangeably and undoubtedly without any hierarchical implications.131 He made his case by examining various passages from the scriptures and noting the significance of ancient translations. For example, he pointed out that the Syriac translation, accepted as more ancient than most, used only one word for both offices.132 In scripture, Owen noted, Peter nor the apostles ever took to themselves the title bishop, but did, in fact, call themselves elders.133 Gipps, in response, used two main lines of thought: First, he argued that the issue is not language at all but rather the role of the so-called bishop. As long as the distinct role is preserved, Gipps was not concerned to maintain the offensive language.134 Second, Gipps insisted that the particular order of bishops was not yet established when Paul was writing his letters, that the order came out of schism and conflict, and therefore the title bishop would not be expected to be found in the scriptures.135 Here, Gipps reveals a significant perspective that undergirded his thinking: the apostles passed along authoritative traditions that were not documented in the scriptures. He affirmed that the apostles, because of schism and the growth of the church, in fact, modified what they had taught previously regarding church government (referenced earlier but here in full): Where then is the absurdity in saying, God upon the occasion of schisms, directed the apostles to alter the government among the Christians? Or rather (as Bishop Pearson speaks) to perfect and compleat it. For the apostles, so long as it seemed good unto ‘em, retained in their own hands the government of all the churches by them founded, as appears from Acts 14. 21, 22, 23. and Chap. 15.36. but when the time of their departure drew on, or when business encreasing on their hand, by reason of their many conversions, they were forced, to be absent, or distant from those churches a long time, they substituted in their rooms, successors and single persons to preside over the churches: which indeed in exact speaking was not a change, but a continuance rather of the former government [...].136

As for Peter (and other apostles) not using the title bishop and electing to identify himself as elder, Gipps states: “’Tis not unusual for humble and modest persons to content themselves with lower titles, than what belongs to them.”137 Gipps’

131 132 133 134 135 136 137

Owen, A Plea, pp. 11ff. Owen, A Plea, p. 14. Owen, A Plea, p. 16. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 78. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, pp. 130ff. Gipps, Tentamen Novum Continuatum, p. 21. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 129.

Major Themes of the Controversy

hermeneutic went beyond the scriptures and located some level of authority in both the writings and practice of the church fathers. In examination of typological patterns in the scriptures, the two controversialists were also worlds apart. Gipps believed that the Old Testament hierarchical patterns were maintained by the apostles and Christ himself, and therefore were to be the model by which the church is structured. He further noted that the temple itself was the pattern of worship for the apostles and its structure must be taken into account: “There is good reason then to believe, that the temple-moral-worship was the pattern of the Christians [...].”138 With such an emphasis on the continuity of the Old Testament patterns, Gipps insisted that the Christian church retain a great deal of its form from what was found there. Observing what the church fathers said about the Levitical system, Gipps found that the High Priest, Priest, and Levites were said to be parallel to Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons.139 He observed that the same pattern was repeated with Christ Himself as High Priest, the Disciples as priests, and the Seventy as the Levites.140 He concluded that this pattern is preserved only within an episcopal system where the bishop has authority over a larger body of presbyters who have deacons subordinate to them. Owen rebutted the view by writing that Gipps was selectively reading the Old Testament, passing over many of the types and patterns of the Church, focusing instead on Israel under the Law, where he was able to find the hierarchy that made his case.141 He further asserted that Gipps was misapplying the typology of these Levitical patterns: patterns which are not repeated or modeled in the New Testament. He expanded the thought, noting that Jesus was not simply the high priest, he is the very priesthood; the twelve were certainly not priests; and the seventy-two were more like elders who made judgments than Levites.142 With regard to the question of Temple-worship as the pattern for the Church, Owen laid out a case to demonstrate that the hierarchy was abolished with the rest of the ceremonial aspects of the Law, leaving only the moral aspects, which were retained within the synagogues. He explained that, The moral worship in the synagogues might be performed by such as were no priests, but none but priests gave attendance at the altar, Heb. 7. 13. Therefore, the ceremonial worship, temple, and priesthood, being abolished, and the moral worship (which was the

138 139 140 141 142

Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 166. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 1. Gipps, Tentamen Novum, p. 2. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, pp. 47–48. Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, pp. 52ff.

117

118

Ordination Controversy

only synagogue-worship) being transplanted into the Christian Church, it follows that the Jewish priesthood was no pattern of the Gospel-ministry.143

Accordingly, it was not the temple but the synagogue that should be understood as the model for the New Testament church. Owen was troubled by Gipps’ assertion that Christ left his church under the authority of an oligarchy of the Twelve, which view Owen attributes to Gipps’ political positions rather than biblical exposition.144 There were also minor skirmishes between the two regarding chronology and how to handle the silence of Luke regarding particular journeys; Gipps making more of the silence and Owen noting that silence cannot be taken as evidence that certain events did not occur.145 Owen clearly articulated a basic hermeneutical principle which he implied was not followed by Gipps: “The joyning of the scriptures together, and the explaining of one scripture by another, will be allow’d by any one that does not seek occasions of quarrelling.”146 Owen went further to note that the epistles could be used to supply information that was missing in the book of Acts,147 which would undermine a lot of Gipps’ conclusions regarding Paul’s journeys and when the order of bishops was established. Though both claimed to pursue the truth as contained in the scriptures, how that truth was made manifest remained an open question: Owen elected for a position that required biblical evidence; Gipps opted for a broader view that allowed the providence of God to bear some authority as well. Ultimately, the controversy ended where it began with neither of the participants persuaded by the rhetoric of the other nor convinced of flaws in their own reasoning. Owen held fast to his position that scriptural ordination does not require a bishop, but rather could be offered by presbyters themselves. Gipps continued to insist on episcopal authority, contending that without a bishop’s involvement, the Dissenting ordinations were void. Although Gipps had the final word at the time of the publication of his Tentamen Novum Continuatum (1699), as mentioned previously, it appears that Owen had a number of unfinished responses that were later brought to print by his brother Charles. The controversy itself allowed the reader insight into opposing conceptions of church, the pastorate, and authority. The Dissenting believers saw the church as more an organism rather than an organization; they saw the pastor as more servant than master; and they located their authority in God’s Word alone. The established Church was convinced of a necessary hierarchy;

143 Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 180. 144 Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, pp. 54ff. See also, the preface to this work in which Owen briefly addresses Gipps’ political leanings. 145 Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 124. 146 Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 162. 147 Owen, Tutamen Evangelicum, p. 126.

Major Themes of the Controversy

their clergy were officers with the power to lead; and they were given authority from Christ through the Apostles, mediated at times through the magistrate. This would not be the end of the debate, as within a decade and a half, lines were again drawn and Anglicans and Dissenters would once again publish regarding this very issue.148

148 Edmund Calamy (one of Owen’s circle of moderate friends) and Church of England Bishop Benjamin Hoadly were involved in a published controversy over the legitimacy of Nonconformity in the early part of the eighteenth century. In their published works the issue of Dissenting ordination was revisited. Cf. William Gibson, Enlightenment Prelate: Benjamin Hoadly, 1676–1761 (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2004), esp. pp. 67–72. Later in the eighteenth century, Presbyterian minister, James Peirce, would again pick up the mantle to defend Nonconformist ordination. Cf. Bracy V. Hill II, “The Language of Dissent: The Defense of Eighteenth-Century English Dissent in the Works and Sermons of James Peirce” (PhD diss., Baylor University, 2010), esp. chapter 5.

119

6.

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

Toward the end of Owen’s life, he was involved in another notable controversy in defense of the legitimacy of Dissent. Although it involved a practice engaged in by Nonconformists since the time of the Restoration, its implications after 1689 were consequential and precipitated a fierce conflict, especially starting in the early years of Queen Anne’s reign. The issue was occasional conformity, wherein those whose commitment was to a Nonconformist church participated in Anglican worship and communion on occasion. The Anglican concern was that this occasional communion and participation in the Lord’s Supper at an established Church qualified these Nonconformists for public service, circumventing the Corporation and Test Acts. For a variety of reasons, including concern for the unity and strength of both Church and Government, Anglicans, especially those of the High-Church persuasion, opposed and condemned this practice. Those who practiced it, generally known as moderate Dissenters, saw occasional conformity as an attempt to reveal unity without uniformity, grounded in their understanding of the universal church. Both the practice and the debate over it began, in some form, at the time of the Restoration, although the conflict simply carried forward earlier discord. Its heavy ecclesiological underpinnings attach it closely with both the Presbyterian struggle for comprehension and the settlement of Toleration. For the Anglicans it was a matter of the defense of their Church, their role in relation to the government, and perhaps some punitive desire against nonconformity for its involvement in the execution of King Charles. For moderate Dissenters, often referred to at the time simply as Presbyterians, it was a matter of liberty of conscience, a strong sense of nationalistic responsibility, and longing for inclusion. As Douglas Lacey notes regarding moderate Dissenters, there was the self-perception of continuity of thought between moderate nonconformity after the Restoration and their moderate Puritan forbears: “Their attitude did not change when they became Dissenters. In their dissent they therefore did not become complete Nonconformists. Instead they adopted the practice of occasional or partial conformity.”1 Lacey refers to the use of the title “conformable Nonconformist.” John Flaningam, in his evaluation of the debate, suggests that Richard Baxter and other early moderates maintained the

1 Douglas R. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England, 1661–1689 (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1969), p. 15.

122

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

practice of occasional conformity precisely because of their hope for comprehension, the reuniting of English Protestantism.2 Norman Sykes thinks that moderate Dissent’s practice of occasional conformity may have, in fact, had an early impact on Parliament’s decision to adopt the Test Act of 1673, requiring those in public office to receive the sacrament of communion in the established Church within three months of taking office. He writes, It seems probable that the adoption of the reception of the Sacrament according to the Church of England as a test for public service, was based upon knowledge of this existing practice [occasional conformity] of leading Presbyterians, which was accepted thereby as a means of differentiating between them and the sectaries whose principles were irrevocably opposed to the national church.3

In other words, the moderate Dissenter’s argument had merit in asserting that there was a precedent of occasional conformity set by Baxter and others prior to the Test Act and that the practice was not simply an attempt to elude the law. Additionally, John Spurr observes that it was not only the expected latitudinarians within Anglicanism who were open toward Dissenters in the early Restoration period, but others as well: “In the first years of the Restoration especially, friendly relations were often maintained between the anglican clergy and those sober and godly men who, while finding it impossible to conform in all things, might yet come to hear the sermon each Sunday or attend the occasional service.”4 The language of sober and moderate were interchangeable. Personal relationships notwithstanding, High-Church Anglicans were committed to preventing Dissenters from holding office and attempts began to outlaw the practice of occasional conformity. Even earlier, in the aftermath of the Rye House Plot (1683) and the Monmouth Rebellion (1685), there was a concerted effort to purge the government of Dissenters. High-Church pamphleteers regularly included these events in their attacks on Dissent, arguing that these revealed a seditious mentality that was both harmful and dangerous.5 The Dissenters found themselves again fighting for legitimacy. Lacey summarizes: “On all of these grounds the Dissenters who had been active in parliamentary politics and even in local government

2 John Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy: Ideology and Party Politics, 1697–1711,” Journal of British Studies 17 (1977): p. 40. 3 Norman Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker: Aspects of English Church History 1660–1786 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), pp. 96–97. 4 John Spurr, “‘Latitudinarianism’ and the Restoration Church,” The Historical Journal 31 (March 1988): p. 77. 5 E.g., Charles Leslie, The Wolf Stript of His Shepherd’s Cloathing (London: 1704), pp. 50ff.

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

had ample reasons to feel that their personal freedom and their property were in jeopardy.”6 One notable move toward such a purging came in the form of an Occasional Conformity Bill proposed in November of 1702. As Sykes explains, “It provided that all officers or freemen in corporations [...] who attended a conventicle after having qualified for office by receiving the Sacrament in the Church of England, should be disabled from all such employment,” and additionally fined and prevented from further service “until they had conformed to the established church for a whole year.”7 This proposal, began a series of attempts which ignited a firestorm of pamphlets, a debate in which James Owen figured prominently. According to Geoffrey Holmes, the debate over occasional conformity “became the most bitterly contested of all battlegrounds of the political parties in the years between 1702 and 1705.”8 He describes the political context as tense, “with the powerful High Tory majority in the House of Commons checkmated by the far slenderer but cleverly marshalled Whig majority in the Lords.”9 In 1977, John Flaningam wrote “The Occasional Conformity Controversy: Ideology and Party Politics, 1697–1711,” tying the controversy to “partisan strife” and political ideology. In his introductory paragraph, Flaningam identifies the lacuna, up to that point, in the study of the occasional conformity controversy of earlyeighteenth century England: “recent research has tended to concentrate on the parliamentary and electoral aspects of the issue, with somewhat less attention given to its importance as an ideological question.”10 Although forty years have since passed, to date there is still much work to be done. Flaningam himself focuses on philosophical and political ideologies and does not develop the more theological issues. Holmes’ examination leads him to conclude: “It was never purely a struggle over principle, though it was principle which most of the protagonists naturally preferred to dwell on in their speeches.”11 In examining the role of James Owen within the controversy, our effort will remain precisely where Flaningam did not concentrate, on the various ecclesiological positions that created an impasse between High-Church Anglicanism and moderate nonconformity. This ecclesiological standoff did not begin with the debate over occasional conformity but did find an important battleground on the issue.

6 7 8 9 10 11

Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 162. Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker, p. 97. Geoffrey Holmes, British Politics in the Age of Anne (London: Hambledon Press, 1987), p. 99. Holmes, British Politics, p. 102. Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” p. 38. Holmes, British Politics, p. 101.

123

124

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

6.1

An Overview of the Controversy

According to Flaningam, James Owen’s use of the language of “moderation” in his Moderation a Virtue (1703), may have been the impetus behind the proliferation of this “catchword” within the debate literature. Sandra J. Sarkela, a scholar of communication, examined the controversy from a linguistic and rhetorical perspective, and contends that Owen’s use of the language of moderation effectively “forced others to address the issues on his terms, giving supporters of occasional conformity an argumentative advantage.”12 Her examination also suggests that Owen’s rhetorical clarity made his pamphlet the opening salvo of sorts, leading to several written responses, both from High-Church Anglicans and the more radical Dissenters. She claims that “by linking occasional conformity to moderation, Owen tapped into a term laden with positive connotations of balance, harmony, and tolerance.”13 The use of this term by Owen, for example, compelled Mary Astell to spend the opening portion of her response offering a biblical definition of the term “moderation”.14 Below we will see further how significant this language was and how High-Church Anglicanism attempted to undermine its rhetorical value by associating it with compromise rather than conviction. Numerous responses were published that directly address Owen’s work. Charles Leslie, a leading High-Church Anglican, noted that there were many pamphlets written in defense of occasional conformity, but he referred to Owen’s work as the “top and chief of them, wrote by the most masterly pen among them [...].”15 Leslie further revealed the significance of Owen’s work by acknowledging that it was considered “un-answerable” by supporters of occasional conformity and that opponents “think it necessary that it shou’d be answer’d very particularly, chapter by chapter [...].”16 This challenge to answer Owen chapter by chapter was taken up by numerous authors, including Leslie, Samuel Grascome, Mary Astell, and Daniel Defoe. Leslie was a priest within the Church of Ireland but moved to London after the Act of Toleration and the Revolution. He was a nonjuror and Jacobite, although he staunchly opposed Roman Catholicism. According to Robert Cornwall, “Although he had yet to publish before the revolution, Leslie quickly became a prominent

12 Sandra J. Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse: The Rhetoric of Occasional Conformity in England, 1697–1711,” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 15 (Winter 1997): p. 68. 13 Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse,” p. 68. 14 Mary Astell, Moderation Truly Stated: or, A Review of a Late Pamphlet, entitul’d Moderation a Vertue (London: 1704), pp. 1–9. 15 Leslie, Wolf Stript, preface p. 3. 16 Leslie, Wolf Stript, preface p. 3.

An Overview of the Controversy

and politically active nonjuror writer.”17 In his works he criticized Whigs and Dissenters, and even “implicated moderate or latitudinarian churchmen in whig fanaticism in The New Association of those called Moderate-Church-Man (1702), in which he charged latitudinarian whigs with seeking to pull down the church by allowing dissenters into the church through comprehension.”18 His opposition to comprehension is notable and is closely related to his repudiation of the practice of occasional conformity. Leslie’s ecclesiological convictions figure prominently in his book refuting occasional conformity. Samuel Grascome was another nonjuring Anglican clergyman who responded chapter by chapter to Owen’s initial work.19 After being deprived of his position, Grascome often wrote anonymously both against the deprivation of nonjurors and in defense of Jacobites. He too was known for his High-Church ecclesiology.20 Another chapter by chapter response came from Mary Astell. Although she was reared in a Catholic family, Astell appears to have converted to Anglicanism, having found favor and support from Archbishop William Sancroft while living in London after the Revolution. She is known for her advocacy of women’s education and politically as a defender of the state, yet she was “first and foremost a philosopher.”21 Astell’s Tory-perspective put her at odds politically with the whiggish Dissenters and produced a sharp contrast with supporters of occasional conformity. Her convictions regarding the role of authority in church and government led her to oppose the ecclesiology of Dissent, even those of moderate positions. Finally, Daniel Defoe, a well-known Nonconformist businessman and pamphleteer took up his pen to respond to Owen’s Moderation a Virtue. Paula Backscheider writes that “both Defoe’s contemporaries and modern historians sometimes blame

17 Robert D. Cornwall, “Leslie, Charles (1650–1722),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019. 18 Cornwall, “Leslie, Charles.” 19 According to D.A. Brunton’s article on “Grascome, Samuel (1641–1708),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019, Grascome was not the author of the work, Occasional Conformity A Most Unjustifiable Practice (London, 1704). Brunton asserts that the actual author of this piece was William Higden, another nonjuror who later, under Queen Anne, took the oaths of allegiance. Grascome, according to Brunton, did enter the debate regarding occasional conformity in response to Owen’s Moderation Still a Virtue and was answered by Francis Tallents, one of Owen’s inner circle of associates and co-pastor. In his pamphlet, The Mask of Moderation (1704), Grascome does refer to Occasional Conformity A Most Unjustifiable Practice as authored by someone else, p. 22. 20 Brunton, “Grascome, Samuel.” 21 Ruth Perry, “Astell, Mary (1666–1731),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www. oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019.

125

126

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

Defoe for beginning the controversy over occasional conformity.”22 Defoe wrote as early as 1698 on the question of occasional conformity in response to lord mayor Sir Humphrey Erwin’s attending both Church and conventicle on the same day, wearing “his official robes and with his sword of office.”23 Interestingly, later when Sir Thomas Abney, the next lord mayor and also a Dissenter, attended both Church and conventicle, Defoe “reissued his pamphlet and added a preface in which he demanded that John How [sic], the prominent minister whose meeting-house Abney attended, either defend occasional conformity or declare against it.”24 Recently, Yannick Deschamps has published a study on Defoe’s involvement in this controversy and has shown a distinct shift in Defoe’s writing on the topic in late 1703. Deschamps attributes this conversion to Defoe’s “recruitment as Robert Harley’s propagandist in autumn 1703.”25 Defoe’s involvement was complex and equivocal. As mentioned above, the political landscape was tense and polarized, and the debate over the issue of occasional conformity was significant, as evidenced by the number of attempts to pass a bill in a short period of time. From a more political and, perhaps, civic perspective, the issues appeared to be focused on more pragmatic matters—England was at war with France and unity was of the utmost importance for the nation. Bishop Gilbert Burnet, in his speech before the House of Lords, offered this counsel: “It is a common maxim, followed even by persecutors, to keep things quiet at home, when nations are engaged in war; especially in such a war as this, which is for universal monarchy, where all is at stake.”26 Sir John Thompson, Lord Haversham, indicated the urgency of the need for unity in his own speech, noting the kind of enemy the nation was at war with: “[...] the French King, a prince whose designs are laid upon the greatest maturity of deliberation, carried on with the greatest secrecy, and executed with the greatest dispatch [...].”27 Though most appeared to agree that the historic moment was weighty, not all concurred that this required the avoidance of such a bill. Humphrey Mackworth wrote to the queen in defense of a bill against occasional conformity, arguing that such a bill would promote “Peace at Home,” which happened to be the title of his pamphlet.28 22 Paula R. Backscheider, “Defoe, Daniel (1660?-1731), in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, http://www.oxforddnb.com/ (23 Sep. 2004), accessed Dec.17, 2019. 23 Backscheider, “Defoe, Daniel.” 24 Backscheider, “Defoe, Daniel.” 25 Yannick Deschamps, “Daniel Defoe’s Contribution to the Dispute over Occasional Conformity: An Insight into Dissent and ‘Moderation’ in the Early Eighteenth Century,” in Eighteenth-Century Studies 46, no 3 (2013): p. 350. 26 Gilbert Burnet, The Bishop of Salisbury’s Speech in the House of Lords, upon the Bill against Occasional Conformity (London: 1704), p. 4. 27 John Thompson Haversham, Speech of a Noble Peer Upon the Reading of the Bill for Preventing Occasional Conformity (London: 1704), p. 2. 28 Humphrey Mackworth, Peace at Home (London: 1703), see both dedication to queen and preface.

Related Issues: Comprehension and Toleration

He insisted that “[t]he best of the Dissenters desire not power or dominion, but liberty of conscience, and exemption from penal laws. The true members of the Church of England desire no more than to see the administration of publick affairs, in the hands of such, who are well affected to the established government [...].”29 In order to satisfy both groups and maintain “peace,” Mackworth argued that it behooved Parliament to pass a bill forbidding occasional conformity, insisting that holding office was not guaranteed by Toleration nor necessary for the “happiness” of Dissenters.30 Flaningam suggests that attempts were made by High-Church Tories toward the end of William’s reign to proscribe occasional conformity, but their efforts were unsuccessful. It was only at the accession of Anne in 1702 that the Tories found the conditions amenable to what Flaningam describes as a “full-scale assault.”31 According to Geoffrey Holmes, the first Occasional Conformity Bill was passed in the House of Commons in November of 1702, only one month after the first session of Anne’s first Parliament opened. This bill would go on to be defeated by the Lords in January of 1703 followed by the second bill’s defeat in December of the same year. In November of 1704 an attempted “tack” of now a third Occasional Conformity Bill to a Land Tax Bill was defeated in the Commons. Advocates of such a bill would have to wait almost another decade before successfully passing one in December of 1711.32

6.2

Related Issues: Comprehension and Toleration

From before the time of the Restoration, numerous attempts were made at finding a united way forward for Anglicans and Nonconformists. The Civil War and Interregnum had polarized society, yet there remained a desire on the part of many for a broad unity within the Church. When the process of restoring the Kingdom began, although Anglicans held the majority, Presbyterians and other moderate Dissenters were actively engaged with them in the settlement project.33 There were early signs

29 30 31 32

Mackworth, Peace at Home, p. 9. Mackworth, Peace at Home, preface. Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” p. 43. Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” p. 59. Flaningam writes, “In December, 1711 the Whig leadership, in an effort to block the peace settlement with France and drive the Oxford (Harley) ministry from power, sold out the Dissenters and supported an occasional conformity bill in return for the cooperation of the Earl of Nottingham, a renegade Tory, and his followers in their coup.” 33 See for example, Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, pp. 3–14; Spurr, John, The Restoration Church of England, 1646–1689 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), pp. 31ff.

127

128

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

of hope and active movement by “leading Presbyterian and other moderate Puritan peers,” but whatever successes they had quickly faded.34 Douglas Lacey traces the parliamentary politics of the Restoration period and notes: “There was too wide a variety and too great an intensity of religious belief prevalent in England at the Restoration for Anglican leaders to realize their hopes of attaining religious uniformity.”35 Comprehension was the desire to have a unified Protestant church in England that encompassed as many Protestant groups as could be reasonably united. Throughout this period, comprehension was sometimes considered in tandem with toleration, sometimes as an alternative to it. Richard Baxter and other Presbyterians were initially supportive and advocates of comprehension while the likes of John Owen and other Congregationalists were more inclined toward toleration. Presbyterian ecclesiology, as we have seen, both maintained the possibility of a national church and viewed the Church of England as a true church, although impure and in error with regard to a number of practices. Independents, on the other hand, coming from a line of separatists were more likely to see communion with the Church of England as a sin and thus preferred freedom of worship (toleration) to inclusion in the national church (comprehension). The establishment of the Act of Uniformity of 1662 was the most significant event in the early Restoration and led to the ejection of nearly 2,000 ministers from their pulpits, marking an apparent victory for Anglican leaders. The Act was strict and made compulsory not only assent to the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles, but further required a vow not to work toward changing the governments of Church or State,36 effectively closing the door to broad comprehension. A series of additional moves by Parliament, including the of 1664 which forbade the religious gathering of those outside of the Church of England, “completed the transformation of Puritanism into Dissent.”37 The requirements of the Act of Uniformity were harsh and thorough, forcing the hands of many who would have preferred to remain within the national Church. Lacey summarizes: “By the law they had been made Separatists, yet almost all of them desired to remain within the Established Church.”38 This tension was most obviously felt by moderate Dissenters. Their ecclesiological convictions left them in-between the two poles of full conformity to the Anglican Church and complete separation as the more radical Dissenters desired. Very early on in the period of Restoration, the Church of England and an Anglican-led Parliament took a hardline stance against Dissent, disciplining those 34 35 36 37 38

Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 9. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 15. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 22. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 15. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, p. 19.

Related Issues: Comprehension and Toleration

who would not conform, passing additional Acts to limit the ability of Dissenters to meet, and effectively attempting to force uniformity.39 Yet, as G.V. Bennett asserts: “The Anglican scheme possessed one fatal flaw. Both Charles II and his brother were earnest in their endeavours for a toleration.”40 Even before returning to the throne, Charles had indicated a desire to offer indulgence and toleration for “tender consciences” with his Breda Declaration. The concern for Protestants in general, whether Anglican or Nonconformist, was Charles’, and later James’, Roman Catholic leanings. A broad toleration, as advocated by the government, could lead to a return to power of Roman Catholics, a result that would have been considered devastating for all Protestants. Bennett describes this Anglican quandary and their subsequent approach: Their position was especially difficult at a time when educated opinion was hardening against the coercion of respected and peaceable dissenters. It thus became their tactic to counter every suggestion of a ‘toleration’ with an offer to consider a ‘comprehension’. A toleration would obviously shatter the whole disciplinary machinery of the national Church, but a comprehension would at least preserve the theory that all citizens came under the aegis of ecclesiastical authority. Thus at all moments of political crisis discussions were held with leading dissenters with a view to relaxing the stricter terms of membership of the Anglican Church [...].41

This “tactic” appears to conform well with John Spurr’s position that the Anglican church, although at times advocating comprehension, was never fully committed to the project.42 Certainly any desire for comprehension required the participation and support of moderate Dissent. According to Spurr, “The key to comprehension was winning over the moderate Nonconformist clergy, those ministers, commonly called ‘Presbyterian’, who could ‘own’ to the parish churches and to the maintained ministry of the national church [...].”43 The ecclesiological issues separating the Presbyterians from the Episcopalians were far less stark than those dividing the more radical Nonconformists from the Church of England. The call from these “sober” Dissenters was a greater latitude than provided for by the Act of Uniformity, but the “relaxation”

39 Bennet, G.V., “Conflict in the Church,” in Britain after the Glorious Revolution 1689–1714, ed. Geoffrey Holmes (London: Macmillan, 1969), pp. 156ff. 40 Bennett, “Conflict in the Church,” p. 157. 41 Bennett, “Conflict in the Church,” p. 158. 42 John Spurr, “The Church of England, Comprehension and the Toleration Act of 1689,” The English Historical Review 104, no. 413 (Oct., 1989): pp. 927–946. 43 Spurr, “The Church of England,” p. 928.

129

130

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

sought was focused on ceremony and ritual rather than on fundamental doctrines.44 Even before the Act of Uniformity of 1662 was signed into law, it was clear that the proposal introduced significant areas of dispute, including the stipulation of reordination by a bishop, the requirement of “unfeigned assent and consent” to the Book of Common Prayer, subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles in their entirety, and the renunciation of the Solemn League and Covenant.45 Without revisiting these particular concerns, there would be no way forward for comprehension. As Norman Sykes underscores, Presbyterians had an expectation that some sort of reconciliation could be found between the Anglicans and themselves. To their consternation, this expectation was not met and, instead, the Restoration Church became a stalwart Episcopalian Church with no bending to the suggested revisions. Sykes elucidates the reason for their disappointment: The justice of this expectation [that is, of reconciliation] was undeniable; for without presbyterian support the restoration might not have been achieved, and had they insisted on safeguarding their own position in relation to the ecclesiastical settlement before the actual return of the king or even before the dissolution of the Convention Parliament, they might have ensured success.46

It was moderates like Baxter who aided this process and they were likewise the most disenchanted with the outcome. At the same time, it was Baxter himself who worked tirelessly to achieve comprehension in the years to follow. Up until the eve of Toleration, there were substantial attempts at comprehending into the Church of England moderate Dissenters and, at the same time, allowing liberty of worship according to one’s conscience to the more radical Dissenters. With William ascending the throne, both comprehension and toleration were jointly discussed in Parliament, the former for Presbyterians and other moderates, the latter for the more radical, but orthodox, Dissenters. Spurr traces in significant detail the various ebbs and flows in the endeavor for comprehension, from the Restoration in 1660 to the passage of the Act of Toleration in 1689. After carefully identifying the points at which comprehension seemed most likely and documenting shifts and turns in momentum, he highlights the decisive end to the debate, coming in response to King William’s proposal before Parliament to abolish the Test Act,

44 In a footnote on page 931, Spurr asserts: “It was commonly, but wrongly, assumed that the moderate Nonconformists and the Anglicans were agreed upon doctrine.” Without expansion, it must be assumed that Spurr is referring to something other than the doctrinal sections of the Thirty-Nine Articles, articles that both the Church and Presbyterians were willing to affirm. 45 Spurr, “The Church of England,” pp. 929–31. 46 Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker, p. 69.

Related Issues: Comprehension and Toleration

which would have opened the door for Dissenters to hold political office.47 He summarizes Parliament’s reasoning and the impact of the decision: This Parliament, like most of its recent predecessors, understood Anglicanism as a badge of political and ideological trustworthiness; widening the terms of communion meant widening access to office; but a toleration would simply allow freedom of worship, while restricting political power to safe hands. The cost to the Church of England was incalculable.48

The Anglicans were concerned with maintaining political power. The Church itself was further concerned with allowing within its ranks those who, by their very nature, do not conform but rather keep their own distinct identity.49 They saw toleration as an indulgence or act of charity rather than a right, and this ideology would have significant implications for further conflict after Toleration, including questions about Dissenters’ rights to maintain their own academies and the debate regarding occasional conformity.50 According to Spurr, “The inescapable conclusion is then that the Restoration Church of England had set her face against comprehension. And, although it would be naïve to discount the roles of self-interest and bigotry, there is as I have shown a strong case for believing that this intransigence sprang from the fear of importing schism into the church.”51 For many Anglicans, although toleration included the official acknowledgment and, perhaps, endorsement of schism, comprehension would have brought schism into the church itself. They saw toleration as the lesser of two evils. Although Owen was not the first to write in defense of the practice of occasional conformity, his contribution to the debate is acknowledged as significant, both by his contemporaries and current scholarship. Flaningam asserts that it was Daniel Defoe who “wrote the first major polemic of the post-Revolution period on occasional conformity.”52 Defoe wrote An Enquiry into the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters in 1697 in which he argued against the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Dissenters who practiced occasional conformity.53 The irony, of course, was that Defoe wrote against the practice although he himself was a Dissenter. His arguments were then taken hold of and used by High-Church Anglicans and numerous pamphlets began to appear from various perspectives. Charles Leslie wrote at the time of the flurry

47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, p. 103 (see also pp. 29–104). Spurr, The Restoration Church, p. 103. Spurr, “The Church of England,” p. 942. Bennett, “Conflict in the Church,” p. 162. See also, Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker, p. 92. Spurr, “The Church of England,” p. 944. Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” p. 43. Daniel Defoe, An Enquiry into the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters (London: 1697).

131

132

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

of texts published, “It wou’d be the work of a society of writers, such as they [the Dissenters] have, to answer every one of that multitude of pamphlets.”54 It appears that Owen’s work became a focal point for a variety of reasons.55 Owen entered the controversy with his initial work, Moderation a Virtue (London: 1704). The number of responses written explicitly to take on Owen is revealing. The sources from which the responses came are impressive. Diverse and prominent pens took up the cause of rejoining Owen, from the prolific Dissenter, Daniel Defoe, to the likes of the Anglican Philosopher, Mary Astell. Owen wrote clearly and, when compared to others of his day, concisely. Bearing in mind his learned background and role as a Dissenting tutor who taught logic and critical thinking to his pupils, his approach is unsurprising.

6.3

Owen’s Strategy

James Owen was a scholar and an historian, but his primary role was that of a pastortheologian. In designing his arguments in defense of the practice of occasional conformity, Owen set out to establish scriptural grounds, and accordingly would annotate many of his points with biblical references, emphasizing the sufficiency, clarity, and authority of the scriptures. For Owen, the Word of God was to be the boundary and rule.56 In this regard, he would specify important hermeneutical considerations while exposing the weak aspects of the arguments of others. For example, in responding to the accusation that he produced no specific scriptural command enjoining the practice of occasional conformity, he wrote, “[a]postolical examples, in things not proper to the Apostles age, have been reputed by all Christians equivalent to a command, as in the observation of the first day of the week, &c..”57 When faced with the defense of Anglican rites by appeal to Paul’s command for decency and order in the church, Owen pointed out that the “addition of the cross to baptism, the gesture of kneeling at the Lord’s Supper, and the use of the surplice in the administration of both sacraments, were unknown in the Apostle’s time, and therefore can be no part of the decency and order, which he intended.”58 In defining the unity of the church, Owen made particular reference to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, both quoting portions and citing others.

54 Leslie, The Wolf Stript, preface p. 3. 55 Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse,” p. 58. 56 James Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue: In Answer to Several Bitter Pamphlets (London: 1704), pp. 17, 26, et al. 57 Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 5. 58 Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 34.

Owen’s Strategy

Owen’s methodology was, however, not limited to biblical exposition, as he desired to lay a foundation for the practice and concomitant ecclesiology in the history of the church, both in England and abroad. Owen cited Chrysostom, Jerome, and other fathers, underlining their common understanding of the equivalence of bishops and presbyters in the scriptures, who were distinguished, according to Jerome, “rather by custom than by divine appointment.”59 Elsewhere, Owen used his knowledge of English history to refer to particular movements and acts of Parliament before, during, and after the Civil War.60 Owen was not unfamiliar with Anglican teaching, ecclesiology, or liturgical practice, discussing regularly the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and even the canons of the church. Perhaps Owen’s most important contribution to the debate over occasional conformity came in his rhetorical and analytical skills, as he cleverly identified important distinctions often missed by others, effectively turned questions to highlight flawed reasoning, and pointed out ways in which Anglican apologists proved too much through their argumentation. In addition, as mentioned above, Owen’s use of the term “moderation” triggered an important skirmish over the meaning and significance of the language of moderation. Owen frequently redirected the attention of his readers, allowing them to see how the questions being asked by his opponents were delimiting the scope of possible responses and assuming what needed to be proven. Owen writes, “The question is not, whether every defect of discipline, an imposed liturgy, purer ordinances, and private edification, will justifie separation from a true church? But where there are several true churches of different constitutions, agreeing in the substantials of religion; which of these shall a man joyn with?”61 He attempted to control the argument by resetting the boundaries. Elsewhere, Owen pointed out how the line of reasoning followed by his opponents, that only bishops have the authority to discipline, “condemns all Reformed Churches, that have not Bishops, as well as the Dissenters.”62 In his works regarding the controversy over occasional conformity, Owen attempted to expose the unintended and, for Owen, unacceptable implications of the arguments of his opponents, when taken to their logical limits. In his inaugural pamphlet, Moderation a Virtue, Owen concisely laid out seven points that he would prove, ranging from arguments regarding precedent (that occasional conformity was “no new thing”), to an emphasis on the theological reasoning of moderation (occasional conformity was grounded in an understanding of the universal church), to the pragmatic (occasional conformity is a benefit to both

59 60 61 62

Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 70, citing Jerome’s Epistle to Titus. E.g., Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, pp. 80ff. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 16. (See also pp. 25 and 33 for similar re-phrasings.) Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 23.

133

134

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

the Anglican Church and the British Nation).63 As Sandra Sarkela has remarked with regard to Owen’s first work on the subject, “the pamphlet became a focal point because Owen presented his case for occasional conformity in seven clear points which are laid out and highlighted by italic type on page one of the pamphlet. This forced others to address the issues on his terms, giving supporters of occasional conformity an argumentative advantage.”64 In an era when verbosity was the norm, Owen’s succinct and to the point approach led to a wide influence. In responding to his opponents, Owen strategically selected two authors to be the focus of his rebuttal, allowing him to remain on task. In Moderation Still a Virtue (1704), Owen did not alter his previous arguments but rather he elucidated the theological underpinnings and developed further the ecclesiological foundations for his thought. An anonymous work, attributed by some to Owen, Moderation Pursued (London, 1704), adds further insight to the debate.65 Although the current author is convinced that this work is not from Owen’s pen, Charles Leslie, one of Owen’s respondents in the controversy assumed it was, asserting in his published answer to Owen that “it is now reprinted among his works. And they are all of a piece.”66 The main threads of disputation in this work closely resemble Owen’s well-attested positions.

6.4

Main lines of Argumentation

Although Owen himself listed seven points in defense of the practice of occasional conformity, his main lines of argumentation can be narrowed to the following categories: 1) precedent (or, history); 2) a reasoned, moderate ecclesiology (or, theology); and, 3) practical benefits (or, pragmatics). Very early on and consistently, Owen himself disowned those who participated in the practice of occasional conformity with the sole purpose of qualifying for office. He considered such an ulterior motive “scandalous” and called it “offensive to all good Christians.”67 His greater concern was not those who were disingenuous in their occasional communion with the Church of England, but the one who, as Owen describes, “is not satisfied in his conscience to separate wholly from the Church of England, and therefore

63 James Owen, Moderation a Virtue: Or, the Occasional Conformist Justify’d from the Imputation of Hypocrisy (London: 1703), pp. 6ff. 64 Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse,” p. 68. 65 Cf. Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse,” pp. 69–70; attribution by the British Library. 66 Leslie, The Wolf Stript, p. 4. 67 Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 7.

Main lines of Argumentation

sometimes joyns with her, tho’ his stated communion be with the Dissenters.”68 For Owen, there was far more at stake than simply political office, although that too had its place. His writings reveal a thorough concern with both the question of the unity of the church and the matter of individual conscience. Like his theological forebears in their desire for comprehension, Owen was not an advocate of total separation and understood the dangers of schism, while simultaneously being deeply convinced of the legitimacy of Dissent. In fact, as we shall see, these theological concerns compelled him toward the moderation he held to so firmly. Owen’s first of seven original points was this: “That occasional conformity is no new thing, but is warranted in some cases by the most sacred and uncontestable precedents.”69 He wanted to establish the antecedents of the current practice of occasional conformity both prior to and throughout the Restoration era and to highlight the early church precedents of similar practices. One of Owen’s most novel approaches to the debate was to argue that New Testament figures, such as John the Baptist, the apostles, and even Jesus himself were occasional conformists to first-century Judaism, to which Owen drew comparisons with moderate Dissenters in relation to the Church of England. By demonstrating that what these men found lawful on occasion, that is, to join together in the worship of the Jewish community in temple or synagogue, was not required of them constantly, Owen believed he had vindicated the practice. Referring specifically to Paul’s example in going to make an offering in the temple at the behest of James and the elders of the church in Jerusalem, Owen asserted that the apostle’s willingness to conform in one case does not require that he conform in all cases.70 Owen reasoned that Paul found it lawful to make an offering in the temple at this particular instance for a particular reason, but this hardly required him to make such temple worship his constant practice. Owen added elsewhere: “The same reasons may justifie a moderate Dissenter, who believing it lawful to joyn with the Church of England, communicates with her, as prudence directs for the Interest of the Protestant religion, avoiding of scandal and the public good.”71 He went further and argued that Paul “judg’d occasional communion lawful, but did not therefore conclude constant communion a duty, nay, it [constant communion with temple-worship] had been sinful to him and all other Christians [...].”72 Owen would receive a significant series of ripostes to this specific line of reasoning. Owen emphasized that the fact that the practice of occasional conformity predated both the Corporation and Test Acts was confirmation of his claim that it 68 69 70 71 72

Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 6. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 6. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 8. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, pp. 13–14. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 8.

135

136

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

was not, inherently, meant for the purpose of eluding the law.73 The accusation of hypocrisy made against occasional conformists, according to Owen, was unwarranted. It is interesting to note that the anonymous pamphlet, sometimes attributed to Owen, similarly directed the reader to the circumstances under which the Test Act was established and the purpose for which it was intended. The author there insisted that the “Act was made to prevent the danger that might arise from popish recusants; and two things was [sic] made a test to discern who are not such, the renouncing transubstantiation, and taking the sacrament according to our Church, which the once doing, discerns, or discovers, and is enough.”74 Norman Sykes, writing about the enactment of the Sacramental Test asserts, “This statute was a retort courteous to Charles’ avowed purpose in his Declaration to give toleration to his coreligionists, and its enactment signalised the unity of Lords and Commons in opposition to any relief of papists.”75 In the context of his discussion on the topic of occasional conformity, Sykes adds this: It seems probable that the adoption of the reception of the Sacrament according to the Church of England as a test for public service, was based upon knowledge of the existing practice of leading Presbyterians [occasional communion], which was accepted thereby as a means of differentiating between them and the sectaries whose principles were irrevocably opposed to the national church.76

If Sykes’ assessment is accurate, it validates Owen’s (and moderate Dissent’s) contention. Owen’s second line of argumentation was more theological and focused on the moderate Dissenters’ ecclesiological convictions that compelled occasional conformity as a means by which Christian unity might be displayed. Plainly stated, Owen writes: “That the principles of occasional conformists are truly Christian and Catholick.”77 That is, for Owen, to be Christian was to have a sense of the universal church, across time and across the nations, similar to other moderates, including Richard Baxter and Philip Henry. Paul Lim aptly describes the heart of Baxter’s thinking as “semi-separatism” and argues that Baxter had the dual aims of unity and purity for the church, unwilling to pursue one at the expense of the other.78 As we shall see below, rather than seeing themselves as schismatic, moderate Dissenters

73 74 75 76 77 78

Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, pp. 6–7. Anonymous, Moderation Pursued (London: 1704), p. 45. Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker, pp. 76–77. Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker, pp. 96–97. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 6. Paul Chang-Ha Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Context (Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 112, 127, and throughout.

Main lines of Argumentation

were convinced of a Protestant ecumenical spirit required by the Christian faith. Owen wanted to present the case that the practice was not pragmatic nor political but grounded in ecclesiological conviction, “from a religious regard to God.”79 He characterized his moderation as one that was founded upon biblical charity, one that was able to distinguish between the essentials and non-essentials of the faith.80 Both in their occasional conforming and in their stated separation moderate Dissenters had given reason and careful consideration, “as prudence directs for the interest of the Protestant religion, avoiding of scandal and the public good.”81 Together Anglicans and Dissent, along with Reformed churches around the world, made up this “Protestant religion” and occasional conformity was one way of promoting its interest. Owen argued that it is proper for one to hold constant communion with the church that he believes will best care for his soul, whether Anglican or Dissenting.82 But for the sake of unity, “this occasional conformist, for whom I plead, is one of a Catholick spirit, and confines not his communion to any one sect or party of Christians, but has an Universal and Comprehensive charity towards all that belong to the mystical body.”83 In other words, both charity and the desire for unity within the mystical body of Christ oblige the catholic Christian not to confine his communion to one group, even if for personal growth and edification, one ought to regularly have communion with the group that most improves one’s spiritual life. Owen was persuaded that occasional conformity brought harm to Dissent rather than the established Church and was convinced that his fellow moderates were well aware of this: “The Presbyterians are very sensible that occasional conformity has weaken’d them, and strengthen’d the Church, and yet dare not but practise their ancient and catholick principles, which have more of conscience than policy in ’em.”84 Daniel Defoe bewildered by this very point, asked in exasperation for Owen to consider if there is any advantage at all to Dissent in occasional conformity, urging Owen to reconsider his endorsement of the practice.85

79 Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 11. 80 Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 1. Note the similarities here between Owen and his circle of moderate friends from Chapter 3. 81 Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 14. 82 Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 12. 83 Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 12. 84 Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 29. 85 Daniel Defoe, The Sincerity of the Dissenters Vindicated from the Scandal of Occasional Conformity (London, 1703), p. 19. It is of important to point out that by the following year, Defoe was writing in defense of occasional conformity and that it was in the best interests of the Church of England, A Serious Inquiry into this Grand Question; whether a Law to prevent Occasional Conformity of Dissenters, would not be Inconsistent with the Act of Toleration (London: 1704), pp. 21ff.

137

138

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

Owen’s method utilized another line of reasoning in defense of the practice of occasional conformity—the pragmatic. For Owen, both the Church of England and the state would be best served by allowing for and not repressing occasional conformity. He contended that occasional conformity strengthens the Church of England, citing Nonconformist involvement in “Episcopal Societies” and their contributions toward the “Reformation of Manners.”86 He further added that the practice weakened Dissent (as noted above) and offered as evidence the approach of more radical Dissenters’—“Many of ’em are very sensible of this, and the more rigid part of ’em separate totally from the publick assemblies, and judge it sinful to joyn occasionally in the publick worship.”87 The concern expressed by these radical Dissenters and shared by high Churchmen, was the possible influence exerted upon their own people and the potential that some might be pulled away from the body in which they were members. Although he considered the practice of occasional conformity with the express purpose of qualifying for office “scandalous,” Owen did not back down from his view that preventing Dissenters from serving in government was a great disservice. In fact, the nationalism of Owen is reflected in the following sentiments expressed regarding Presbyterians and their love of country: “They are as much born to serve their Queen and Country as other men, and as well affected to Her Majesty’s government as the most loyal of her Episcopal subjects.”88 Elsewhere, he adds, “As Her Majesty takes ’em all into her royal protection, so is she equally intitled to the service of all.”89 He considered it a deprivation to the country that Nonconformists were kept from civil offices. Furthermore, Owen attempted to show his nationalism by emphasizing that the best defense against popery would be a united Protestantism.90 Sir Thompson, Baron of Haversham, said in defense of Dissenters, “the persons affected by this bill are such as have always been serviceable to the government, and are some of the best friends to it.”91 Owen wholeheartedly agreed.

6.5

The Responses to Owen

After having responded chapter by chapter to Owen’s Moderation a Virtue, Charles Leslie hastened to add: “Not that there was any necessity for it, from the strength of the argument in it, of which the reader is judge: But because so much stress was laid

86 87 88 89 90 91

Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 25. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 27. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 14. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 48. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 47. Haversham, The Speech of a Noble Peer, p. 2.

The Responses to Owen

upon it by the party; and some others have been taken with the harangue of it.”92 What is clear is that Owen’s book had become the standard and the debate took shape in response to it. Leslie, Grascome, and Astell purported to respond chapter by chapter, whereas Defoe, one of his own party, felt compelled to respond to the first three, leaving the more pragmatic arguments to others. The Anglican respondents were concerned to reveal Owen’s hypocrisy and expose the dangers of occasional conformity to the authority of Church and State. Defoe was concerned to expose the dangers of occasional conformity to the soul and the cause of nonconformity. He wrote reverentially, but with a sense of exasperation and pleading. Defoe’s tone toward Owen was respectful, acknowledging that he [Owen] “writes strenuously, and yet modestly, he deserves an answer of respect.”93 Yet he expressed apprehension that Owen’s arguments minimized the reasons for separation and saw himself as one of Owen’s “brethren dissenters, who cannot satisfy themselves in the same latitude of principles.”94 Defoe’s use of the language of “latitude” was telling. Owen had advocated for moderation and many of those who responded to him defined his moderation as hypocrisy. Sandra Sarkela, picking up on a footnote in Flaningam’s work, highlights the significance of the language of moderation. Flaningam had dubbed moderation a “catchword” and suggested that Owen’s pamphlet resulted in its development.95 Sarkela adds, “The comment is suggestive, pointing the way for further rhetorical analysis. I contend that moderation was much more than a ‘catchword.’ It was a term first adopted in this debate by religious nonconformists, and it was an important concept in their justification of different religious practices.”96 Both the concept and language of moderation certainly precede this early-eighteenth century controversy, but the centrality of the language in this particular debate is undeniable.97 The use of the language of moderation was profuse, found in multiple pamphlet titles, often in direct response to Owen. Referring to himself as “one call’d an High-Church-Man” on the title page of his response to Owen, Leslie proceeded to connect moderation both to moderate Dissenters like Owen but further to Low Churchmen. This high-low divide was

92 93 94 95 96 97

Leslie, The Wolf Stript, p. 31. Defoe, The Sincerity of the Dissenters, p. 4. Defoe, The Sincerity of the Dissenters, p. 1 Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” p. 54n. Sarkela, “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse,” p. 58. Cf. Ethan Shagan, “Beyond Good and Evil: Thinking with Moderates in Early Modern England,” in Journal of British Studies 49 no 3 (July 2010), pp. 488–513. In this article, Shagan traces moderation in early modern England and offers a model that describes the language of moderation as a “crucial enabling logic for English religious conflict [...].” [page 492] Although outside the direct purview of this present work, there is some thematic overlap.

139

140

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

consequential for a non-juror like Leslie and he did not refrain from expressing just how disdainful he found the positions of the Low Churchmen: “To be called, low, that is indifferent in such things, is the greatest reflection we can put upon any body. How then can the name of a low-church-man be honourable, when the name of a low-friend, is so contemptible.”98 He defined high as “zealous” and asserted that “[m]oderation is generally understood as the opposite to zeal.”99 He compared moderation to a kind of indifference that is repugnant to God (“which God abhors”) and called it a “vice” rather than a “virtue” drawing attention to Owen’s title.100 Astell similarly asserted that “[t]o be moderate in religion is the same thing as to be luke-warm, which God so much abhors, that he has threatened to spew such out of his mouth.”101 Like Leslie’s attack on the word “low,” Astell presented a scathing but rhetorically effective indictment by using the language of moderation adjectivally to illustrate its absurdity when used with regard to religion: “moderately honest,” “moderately sober,” “moderate courage,” “moderate valour,” and finally “a moderate friend.”102 Leslie praised the High Churchmen as those who “represent things highly, that is fully true,” as opposed to the moderate Low Churchmen who he accused of misleading the people by vouching for the Dissenters: “They re-present the Dissenters as a conscientious and loyal people, that have no ill designs either against the Church or the Monarchy.”103 Leslie and High Churchmen believed this moderation was an unacceptable compromise and Defoe’s remark about “latitude” may be seen as the more radical Dissenters’ correspondent reaction to this middle ground. Thomas Wagstaffe clearly stated the concern, accusing the moderate Dissenters of “endeavouring to spread faction in the Church, to set them one against the other till both are ruined, and they gather up the stakes. Hence the distinction of the high and low Church; and hence it is that they are stroking some (whether fools or knaves) under the character of Moderate men [...].”104 Wagstaffe implied that the moderate Dissenters were responsible for the apparently growing use of labels within the Church and complained that “it seems they have pitch’d upon moderation as a charm to work us into this state of stupidity.”105 He alluded to a growing coalition among moderates within both Dissent and the established Church and expressed

98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Leslie, The Wolf Stript, preface p. 4. Leslie, The Wolf Stript, p. 2. Leslie, The Wolf Stript, p. 1. Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, p. 5. Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, p. 5. Leslie, The Wolf Stript, preface p. 5. Thomas Wagstaffe, The Case of Moderation and Occasional Communion (London: 1705), p. 7. Wagstaffe, The Case of Moderation, p. 10.

The Responses to Owen

great concern over it.106 Astell likewise referred to this association and indicted the moderate Churchman, saying he “must either be a good natur’d easy fool [...] or else he is a prophane hypocrite, or a down-right libertine, who ridicules religion, or has no real concern for it, but only sides with that which will best serve his turn [...].”107 Although the High-Church respondents attacked the language of moderation and considered Owen’s proposal a form of compromise and indifference to the things of religion, they did not deny that there was a proper and useful understanding of moderation.108 Astell spent a number of pages working through particular biblical texts, carefully enumerating Christian duties, and finally summarizing: “Why that moderation which the Scripture enjoins, and the only way of rendering moderation a vertue, is the proportioning our esteem and value of every thing to its real worth.”109 She emphasized moderation cannot be a virtue that creates boundaries around other known virtues like zeal, order, and decency.110 Wagstaffe also attempted to define moderation biblically and offered “mortification” as a proper synonym, “sum’d up in that command of the Apostle, Love not the world, neither the things of the World.”111 Like Astell, his understanding of the term was that it limited vice, not virtue. It was a tempering of ambition, self-love, and other carnality. Wagstaffe described the moderate Dissenters’ view as follows: “A moderate man then (in their sense) is one who is very loose in his principles, but looser in his conscience [...] who enters into the Church because there is something to be got by it, and at the same time hates the constitution, and would be glad to lend his helping hand to destroy it [...].”112 Grascome accused Owen of a moderation that amounted to “full liberty in matters of religion” which meant that “every man may make his own creed, and his own commandments, or if he please have none at all.”113 For Owen’s opponents, the moderation he espoused was pragmatic and self-seeking, not at all virtuous. Each of Owen’s three main lines of argumentation received consistent responses. The precedents he offered were routinely called into question and dismissed as either not analogous or overly simplistic. Defoe, although acknowledging that Owen understood his own examples were not parallel to the current practice of occasional

106 Wagstaffe, The Case of Moderation, p. 7. 107 Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, p. 13. 108 Samuel Grascome, The Mask of Moderation Pull’d off the Foul Face of Occasional Conformity: Being an Answer to a late Poisonous Pamphlet entitul’d Moderation Still a Vertue (London: 1704), pp. 5–14. 109 Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, p. 5. 110 Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, pp. 3–4. 111 Wagstaffe, The Case of Moderation, pp. 20–21. 112 Wagstaffe, The Case of Moderation, p. 20. 113 Grascome, The Mask of Moderation, p. 8.

141

142

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

conformity, asked, if not parallel, then “[w]hat’s this to us?”114 Astell conceded that there may be many instances of occasional conformity and moderation in the world, but added a significant philosophical and ethical insight: “We cannot therefore argue from what men do, to what they ought to do.”115 Yet she too would quickly turn to examining carefully the precedents Owen offered and revealing their deficiencies. A case by case examination was necessary, according to Leslie, since he stressed that precedents can easily be “mistaken or mis-apply’d.”116 Grascome, before turning to inspect Owen’s proposed precedents, insisted that “[e]xamples, we know, are of the weakest kind of arguments [...].”117 Upon examination, beyond the aforementioned theoretical concerns with the proper use of precedents, the cases themselves did not satisfy Owen’s opponents.118 It was the overwhelming response of Owen’s interlocutors that Christ conformed constantly and submitted fully to the Jewish Church, though he took issue with and “abhor’d the innovations of the Jews.”119 With regard to the apostles, Astell astutely pointed out that the Jewish church was intended by God’s design to be replaced by the Christian church. Those who were true believers within Judaism “must necessarily joyn with the New Establishment [...].” She went on to add that, “[i]n like manner the apostles in obedience to our Lord and in imitation of Him, did not absolutely break off from the Jewish Church, till their continuing to communicate with it was interpreted as a virtual renunciation of Christianity.”120 In other words, Christianity is the true fulfillment of the Old Testament religion properly understood. Defoe, perhaps more modest in his claims, questioned what could be concluded from surveying the apostles’ interaction with the Jews, since “it remains to examine, whether the Law expir’d at once, or by gradations: If it expir’d at once, when that time was; if gradually, when it arriv’d to a total demise.”121 Grascome also countered Owen with a theological explication of the Law and Christ’s relation to it.122 The uniform response to Owen’s argument from precedents was that his examples were unconvincing. More than one of the respondents offered their own counter examples of occasional conformists, including Korah who rebelled against Moses and Aaron for their impositions.123 For them, such practice found

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

Defoe, The Sincerity of Dissenters, p. 8. Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, p. 13. Leslie, The Wolf Stript, p. 7. Samuel Grascome, Occasional Conformity A Most Unjustifiable Practice (London: 1704), p. 2. Grascome, The Mask of Moderation, pp. 22ff. Defoe, The Sincerity of Dissenters, pp. 6–7. Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, p. 18. Defoe, The Sincerity of the Dissenters, p. 8. Grascome, Occasional Conformity, pp. 11ff. See Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, p. 20; and Leslie, The Wolf Stript, p. 8.

The Responses to Owen

in scripture was always due to a failure to commit fully in obedience to God and was a form of culpable compromise. To Owen’s theological arguments for the universal church, the response was an accusation of schism. Owen had insisted that the differences between the Anglicans and moderate Dissenters were minimal and pertained to the accidents rather than the essentials. To more radical Dissenters this was soft-pedaling and to High Churchmen it was hypocrisy. “Their non-conformity must suppose great mattres [sic] in difference: And their occasional conformity must suppose very little. If any man can reconcile these, he must make great and little to mean the same thing!” wrote a bewildered Leslie.124 Defoe too shared this perplexity and made the aim of his response to prove “[t]hat ’tis a sin in a Dissenter to conform to the Church of England, or else his dissenting is a sin, and he ought to repent of one, or of the other.”125 In fact, Defoe questioned the high view of the Church of England expressed by Owen, wondering if one who held such a view of the Church could even be considered a Dissenter.126 Defoe, like the others, considered Owen’s insistence that Dissent and the Church differ only in accidentals “a strong argument for a constant conformity” and insufficient to legitimize separation.127 In his attack on separation, Grascome went so far as to compare occasional conformists to “bats” since it was unclear whether they were birds or beasts.128 The critique of occasional conformity from a theological perspective, however, was not limited to a questioning of the integrity of the Dissenter. Opposition to the practice emphasized the immensity of the sin of schism and the enormity of unity. Grascome summarizes well the sentiments shared by others regarding schism: “[...] if you think that a small sin, consider that pathetick prayer of our Saviour, for the unity of Christians, a little before he died for us [...].”129 Astell considered unity “the very design of the gospel” and Wagstaffe called it a “Christian vertue.”130 It is important here to note how the Anglican respondents understood both schism and unity. Owen himself repeatedly emphasized his desire for catholic Christianity and expressed a sense of unity which he had with the Church, a unity publicly displayed by the very practice of occasional conformity in question. Further, Owen himself decried the idea of wholly separating from the Anglican church, much like his Puritan forebears. The ecclesiological definitions of the various parties account for this discrepancy. Fundamentally, the High Churchmen believed that

124 125 126 127 128 129 130

Leslie, The Wolf Stript, p. 13. Defoe, The Sincerity of the Dissenters, introduction. Defoe, The Sincerity of the Dissenters, p. 14. Defoe, The Sincerity of the Dissenter, p. 17. Grascome, Occasional Conformity, p. 15. Grascome, Occasional Conformity, p. 41. Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, p. 34; Wagstaffe, The Case of Moderation, p. 18.

143

144

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

it was the bishop who was the “principle of unity.”131 Along with the doctrine of apostolic succession and the divine right of episcopacy, the role of the bishop in uniting church members was emphasized. As Grascome stated unequivocally, “A church, according to St. Cyprian, is plebs sacerdoti adunata, a people united to their pastor [...],” which carried with it significant implications for the current debate, which he expounds: “[...] in which society they communicate as members in all the offices of religion, and are obliged to fixed and constant communion.”132 One who breaks this union with the bishop or joins himself to those who have separated themselves are themselves separated and, therefore, schismatic.133 As an extension of the doctrine of apostolic succession within Anglicanism there was a notion of the visible church that was tied directly to the bishops.134 When the bishop is removed from the equation of unity, “[t]hey have left not stone upon another in the Church, as an outward visible society.”135 Grascome went to the very heart of the legitimacy of Dissent, arguing that since the ordinations of Nonconformists lack the proper authorization (that is, of bishops), “for want of this necessary requisite, their [the Dissenters’] administrations are nullities.”136 Without this proper authorization, there could be no proper preaching of the Gospel nor administration of the sacraments and therefore no part in the visible church. Owen and other moderate Dissenters had maintained a unity of doctrine. In the preface to his work, Leslie repudiated this idea: “And if I believe the general doctrines of Christianity, I am of the Church, these mens opinion, tho’ I stand excommunicated from all the Churches in the world, and that for my open contempt of their authority [...].”137 The bishop was the principle of unity as well as the one in whom the authority of the apostles was invested. To remove oneself from the public gathering was schism; to attempt occasional communion while at the same time partaking in communion with separated churches was also schism.138 The significance of the sacrament of communion cannot be overstated. Wagstaffe writes: “Communion denotes Church-membership, and an intimate and mutual union between the parts [...] Communion is the office of the sheep within the fold communicating with their pastor [...].”139 He goes on to indict the practice of occasional conformity for perverting the sacrament: “’Tis an audacious presumption to

131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139

Leslie, The Wolf Stript, p. 23. See also John Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, pp. 132ff. Grascome, Occasional Conformity, p. 36. Grascome, Occasional Conformity, p. 38. Spurr, The Restoration Church, p. 140. Leslie, The Wolf Stript, preface p. 6. Grascome, The Mask of Moderation, p. 44. Leslie, The Wolf Stript, preface p. 6. Leslie, The Wolf Stript, pp. 3 an 22ff. Wagstaffe, The Case of Moderation, p. 34 (numbered 26 in the original due to error).

The Responses to Owen

attempt on this sacrament, in direct opposition to the very ends of it, which are, as to knit us to Christ as to the Head, so also to one another as members of the same mystical body.”140 Moderate Dissenters were accused of a hypocritical use of the sacrament, since in fact they would not maintain a constant communion with the church. “Occasional communion can be the bond only of occasional unity. Occasional unity is not Christian unity, hath no footing in the Gospel, no place in religion, and is in truth, nothing.”141 Owen’s third line of argumentation offered that both Church and state would be strengthened by the practice of occasional conformity. The respondents not only dismissed Owen’s contentions, they countered with their own predictions. Some feared the end result of allowing occasional conformity would be comprehension by way of a relaxing of Anglican impositions. They foresaw division and factions developing within the church.142 Others expressed apprehension concerning the impact of having Nonconformists in office because of their lack of loyalty to the nation, accusing Dissenters of having the same spirit as their forebears had in 1641, alluding of course to regicide.143 Astell captured the heart of the concern, asking, “[a]nd pray what sort of men are most likely to maintain a government, and to pursue the methods it prescribes, vigorously and faithfully, but those who are entirely satisfy’d with it? Those who like it but by halves will serve it so [...].”144 She went on to argue that since the queen presides over both civil and ecclesiastical governments, it is not possible for one who cannot consent ecclesiastically to consent fully to the civil government.145 In another work, Astell goes so far as to reject the idea that Dissent should have the right to their own academies. She argued that occasional conformists insist that communion with the Church of England is not sinful, “but only would be so to them, because they doubt of it, and because their consciences are tender [...].” That being the case, she asks, “what necessity of nursing up their children in the same doubts and scruples?”146 By allowing for such academies, the nation would only be allowing the propagation of such views, views that were epitomized in the Civil War era and in the treatment of Anglicans in Scotland.147

140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

Wagstaffe, The Case of Moderation, p. 37 (29). Wagstaffe, The Case of Moderation, p. 37 (29). Leslie, The Wolf Stript, p. 25. Wagstaffe, The Case of Moderation, p. 5. Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, p. 31. Astell, Moderation Truly Stated, p. 32. Mary Astell, A Fair Way with the Dissenters (London: 1704), p. 6. Astell, A Fair Way, pp. 10ff.

145

146

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

6.6

Owen’s Ecclesiological Convictions

Understanding the contours of Owen’s ecclesiology will be essential to grounding his arguments and distinguishing his opponents’ perspectives while examining their rejoinders. Owen was focused on the question of the universal church and its relation to the local manifestations of the church. He insisted that membership in a particular church is variable and dependent on one’s membership in the universal church, not vice versa. In other words, the more significant consideration is how one becomes a member of the universal or mystical body, only after which local membership has value. He asserted that baptism is entry into the universal visible church and not into a particular church, since “[w]e are baptiz’d into Christ, and not into Paul, or into a particular Church, or pastor.”148 He added an important implication of this reality: “Our relation to the church universal is constant and abiding, and nothing can destroy it that is not destructive of our Christianity; but our relation to a particular church is variable and occasional.”149 For Owen, one could change particular churches and remain in the universal church, which is an important consideration for the debate regarding occasional conformity. Although at one time there was only one church, one bishop, and one altar per city, Owen noted that in England of his day, there were hundreds of congregations in one city. Since it is not possible for all Christians in the city to meet together, some local separation is necessary and inevitable. Owen added that for the one who moves his residence to another location, even to another kingdom, “my relation ceases to the particular church I formerly joyn’d with, and I acquire a new relation to some other particular church. So that properly speaking, communion with any particular church is occasional, and not so constant and invariable as that with the universal church [...].”150 It was precisely this “communion” with the universal church that produced unity, rather than some physical or local presence. Owen’s understanding of the universal versus the local church was dependent on his notion of the essence of the church’s unity. Owen narrowed in on the essentials when he wrote of the one with a catholic spirit as one who “places religion in the great things of the Gospel, faith, holiness, righteousness, and mercy,” emphasizing what he considered “simple Christianity,” free from the accidents of human additions.151 Anglicans grounded their unity in the congregation’s relationship to the diocesan bishop, a view which Owen considered problematic. Owen criticized this view by highlighting the practical reality that bishops were often absent from particular congregations for years at a time. “The stated communion of a particular church 148 149 150 151

Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 49. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 49. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 49. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, pp. 12–13.

Owen’s Ecclesiological Convictions

is personal and local, between those that are present,” insisted Owen.152 In other words, the absence of the bishop would mean that the parishioners are themselves limited to occasional communion, if the bishop be the unifying factor. Yet, no Anglican would admit to this occasional nature of their communion and would insist that the unity is present even in the bishop’s absence. Here Owen agreed and explained how it is possible: “The communion we have with those that are absent is that of the Universal Church, and so the parochial assemblies joyn not only with their own bishop, but with all Christian pastors and churches that hold the foundation, of what denomination soever, as parts of the Universal Church.”153 It is in holding “the foundation” that biblical unity is found and shared with all Christian denominations. “The unity of the Church respects Christ or his Members: The Church is united to Christ by faith, the members of it are united unto one another by love; and those who are united in the sacred bonds of faith and love, are in the unity of the mystical body; though they live in distant places of the earth, and can have no local communion.”154 The unity of the church is the unity of those who share a common faith in a common head. This mystical unity is participated in by believers wherever they may be found in the world and in whatever type of church, provided that they hold to the fundamental truths of Christianity. For Owen, as with other moderate Nonconformists, it was doctrine and teaching that constituted the essence of the church’s unity. Owen was greatly concerned that the Anglican insistence on episcopacy would preclude fellowship with Reformed churches throughout Europe. For Owen, true catholic communion was found in a shared faith, which included both union with the same head, Jesus Christ, and agreement in fundamental doctrines; having both of these elements bound people together in the mystical body of Christ. Consequently, Owen’s understanding of schism differed from the High-Church Anglicans, although his indictment of it was equally adamant. He insisted that “[a] truly Catholic spirit is a charitable spirit, owns all the churches, that hold the foundation, to be parts of the universal church, and dare not unchurch ’em for their imperfections.”155 He adds that those who “condemn to the pit of hell all that differ from ’em in the accidentals of religion, are guilty of the most destructive violation of the churches unity.”156 In this way Owen indicted the High Churchmen who questioned the legitimacy of all who were outside of Episcopacy. In responding to one of his published opponents, Owen wrote, “In plain English, by his principles he can acknowledge no Catholic Church but the Episcopal Church 152 153 154 155 156

Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, pp. 50–51. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 51. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 39. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 50. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 39.

147

148

The Conflict over Occasional Conformity

of E[ngland] and that of Ireland, for the rest are all schismaticks; and schism he tells us is a damnable sin, as bad as adultery and murther [sic] [...].”157 To Owen’s Protestant ecumenical spirit, such a position was simply untenable and schismatic in and of itself. Of great importance for Owen and moderate Dissenters was the question of the marks of a true church. Following the magisterial, Reformers Owen understood the marks to be pure teaching, proper administration of the sacraments, and godly discipline. He publicly agreed with Article XIX of the Church of England’s Thirty-Nine Articles and asserted that according to the definition found therein, Dissenting societies were true churches: “a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preach’d and the sacraments be duly administered, according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”158 Of course, Owen was aware that not all would agree with his interpretation of whether Dissenting churches were “according to Christ’s ordinance,” and so described them thus: “They profess the Christian Faith, have the pure Word of God preach’d, and the sacraments duly ministred [sic], by ministers call’d and set apart by Gospel-bishops; whose ministrations are according to Christ’s ordinance, without corruptive additions.”159 If anyone was guilty of “corruptive additions,” in Owen’s view, it would be the Church of England. The Dissenting view of the role of the pastor or presbyter was rejected by High Churchmen, a debate in which Owen had already been involved. His view of the pastorate was clear, presbyters “are church-rulers, and exercised the power of the keys, in doctrine and discipline. Presbyters are Scripture-bishops, who are commanded to feed, or rule the flock [...]. The constitutions of the Apostles make the presbyters to succeed in to the place of the apostles, as teachers of the knowledge of God, and refer us to Mat. 28. 19.”160 This elevated view of pastoral ministry was also expressed by Owen against the imposition of the liturgy. Speaking of the Dissenters’ understanding of the pastor, he wrote: “They conceive ministers, who are the ambassadors of Jesus Christ, should be men of abilities, to speak in the name of the people to God, as well as in the name of God to the people. If they are fit to deliver a message from God to the people by preaching, why not as fit to deliver the people’s message to God by praying?”161 Yet, the presbyter’s calling was not to draw people to himself but to God in faith through the Word. In describing the significance of the gifted minister in guiding those under his care, Owen contended that “[i]t’s the duty of ministers to help the people to improve the 157 158 159 160 161

Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 55. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 20. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 20. Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 23. Owen, Moderation a Virtue, p. 17.

Owen’s Ecclesiological Convictions

divine providences for their good, not only by instructing ’em, but by such proper confessions, thanksgivings, and petitions to God, as may both excite and conduct ’em in the performance of this duty.”162 Owen himself, in preaching and writing, desired to fulfill this very duty. The debate over occasional conformity would continue to occupy the minds and pens of many for years to come. Although the current iteration of a bill against the practice during Owen’s life was not successfully passed through Parliament, by 1711 opponents of the practice would receive their wish. According to Flaningam, political expedience caused the Whigs to severe their close ties with Dissent and move on toward a more advantageous partnership.163 Without their Whig supporters in Parliament, Nonconformists were unable to fend off the proposed bill which passed easily through both Houses. William Gibson shows a progression of events leading up to passage of the bill, including the Sacheverell controversy and the Tory return to power.164 In the end, it came to down to politics rather than theology. Eventually Owen’s hope for moderation and unity in the essentials faded into a sea of pluralism and denominational segmentation.

162 Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, pp. 28–9. 163 Flaningam, “The Occasional Conformity Controversy,” p. 59. 164 Gibson, The Church of England 1688–1832: Unity and Accord (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 75–85.

149

7.

Conclusion

Moderation and Dissent are both complex categories with significant, sometimes apparently disparate features. Moderates in general emphasized charity and desired to focus on what they considered essential matters. Moderates within nonconformity, as we have seen, showed their moderation by eschewing complete separation from the established Church and seeing the benefits of a national, comprehensive church. Dissenters, of course, emphasized Anglicanism’s unscriptural rites and protested its unbiblical requirements. When the two descriptions of moderation and dissent came together in one thinker, the dynamic balance aimed at was difficult to maintain and attracted great criticism. Often the middle is the loneliest place to be. And although James Owen was the recipient of much criticism, he was persuaded of the righteousness of his moderate nonconformity. In defending the Dissenting academies against accusations from Henry Sacheverell, Owen revealed one significant source of his moderation: If the Dissenting ministers be denied the benefit of a learned education, they will be apt to run much further from the Church than they do at present. Learning enlarges and improves our rational powers, gives us juster [sic] and more comprehensive ideas of persons and things, and usually disposes us to a more candid interpretation of the sentiments of those that differ from us.1

His point was clear: education leads to moderation and Owen himself was welleducated. This reality was not limited to Dissenters but included all and Owen indicated such when he wrote, “Among the Church-men and Dissenters, the most learned and judicious are usually the most moderate, and the more ignorant and conceited of both parties are the most bigotted and censorious.”2 Such theological moderation has not been the focus of much scholarship nor has James Owen found prominence in seventeenth-century studies. This book has been an attempt to fill aspects of both lacunae. As Norman Sykes asserted, the Dissenting academies and the controversy over occasional conformity were significant elements of the period of Toleration.3 Owen

1 James Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue (London: 1704), pp. 98–99. In defending the Dissenting academies, Owen was responding to Henry Sacheverell’s The Nature and Mischief of Prejudice and Paritality (Oxford: 1704). 2 Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, p. 99. 3 Norman Sykes, From Sheldon to Secker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), p. 91.

152

Conclusion

published on both of these ecclesiological matters. In the controversy over presbyterian ordination and the controversy over occasional conformity, Owen was a prominent, if not the most prominent, thinker from the Dissenting perspective. Although Owen has not received much scholarly attention his contemporaries found his publications worthy of response. Those of like persuasion saw him as a champion of their cause; those who disagreed with him treated him as one to whom it was important to respond. This fact alone has made a study of Owen’s work profitable for our understanding of the Toleration period, with its manifold ecclesiological developments. What we have found in our study is that Owen’s moderation was not a compromise nor simply a desire to find the most expedient way forward. Instead, Owen along with his moderate Nonconformist friends was persuaded that their moderation was most in line with what the scriptures required. They believed in the Protestant Reformation and desired to see the Protestant Church thrive. They believed that unity was necessary for the Reformed Church’s health and pursued such unity, much like their Puritan forebears of the sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries. Of course, the circumstances had changed with the Restoration Settlement and Act of Uniformity and these moderate Dissenters now had to find a way toward unity from outside the established Church. They found that agreement on the foundational and essential doctrines of Protestant Christianity was the right path toward unity. Following the trail blazed by Richard Baxter, these moderate Dissenters desired to balance purity and unity and their moderation reflected this desire. As we discovered, Owen was committed to the primacy of scripture and was concerned with unscriptural additions imposed by Anglicanism. He had been so greatly impacted by Dissenting preachers and teachers in his formative years that he believed Nonconformist worship was better for the soul. Seeing first-hand the consequences of the Act of Uniformity and the rest of the Clarendon Code, Owen felt the need to defend nonconformity and did so both before and after Toleration. His understanding of pastoral ministry and the work of shepherding led him to highly value presbyterian ordination which emphasized function over the Anglican emphasis on office and hierarchy. He believed that preaching the Gospel was the highest calling and to discount the ordinations of those who were faithfully discharging their ministerial duties simply for lack of a bishop’s approval was highly offensive. Yet at the same time, he was convinced that the English Church was a true church and therefore he could not separate completely from his Christian brethren. Owen’s defense of occasional conformity appears to have been one way of calming his uneasy conscience, as the accusation of schism stung deeply. This consciousness of the offense of schism appeared in Owen’s moderate friends as well. Along with Owen’s passion for scripture was his related passion for the early church. Owen lived at a time when the Anglicans were developing a keener sense

Conclusion

of their continuity with the ancient church. Episcopacy, they believed, was a return to the primitive church and was their way of freeing themselves from the Roman Catholic stronghold on the history of the church. Owen too was a historian wellacquainted with the fathers and he desired to show that the Nonconformist ways fit the pattern of the earliest believers. He wanted to maintain the purity and, in a sense, the simplicity of biblical worship by locating and highlighting where and when impositions and rituals were added, whether Roman Catholic or Anglican. As a Protestant historian, Owen identified the fourth century as the beginning of a time of decline, noting that it was after Constantine that human additions were brought into the worship of the church. These human additions blurred the Gospel and led to the corruption that he believed was found within the Catholic Church and which corruption the Anglican Church was at risk of as well. By tracing his nonconformity to roots found long before both Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, Owen was participating in the development of Dissenting identity. As we studied Owen’s Protestant ecumenism, we were able to confirm the more positive view of the eighteenth-century Church of England. As an orthodox Presbyterian minister who valued doctrine, he did not find the Anglican Church theologically objectionable. Although the rites and impositions were significant enough to require his nonconformity, Owen observed the necessary marks of a true church within the established Church. Owen and other moderates found it helpful to identify themselves as catholic Christians, careful to avoid too narrow a denominational affiliation. Before long, denominations and pluralism would proliferate. In our examination of Owen’s defense of both presbyterian ordination and the practice of occasional conformity, we saw the prominence of the conscience and private judgment. Whether with regard to the role of the people in selecting their own ministers or the freedom of an English citizen to choose the church which best fit her needs, Owen’s convictions tended toward the empowerment of the individual. His emphasis on the fact that one’s denominational commitment need not hinder her service to the state would be echoed by many in England and across the Atlantic in the American colonies. Although there is no evidence that Owen was widely read by those later promoting a separation of church and state, Owen’s arguments appear to fit well within such a stream of thinking. Owen, of course, would not fully adhere to the modern principle of separation of church and state since he was adamant against Roman Catholic participation in government. Again, Owen felt a very strong sense of Protestant or Reformed identity. Much remains to be examined in both Owen himself and moderation more broadly. One particular area that requires further study is the relationship between latitudinarians and moderate Dissent. Although latitudinarians were known for their moderation and their openness toward sober Nonconformists, what were the particular issues that prevented a closer connection between these two groups? Was there personal friendship or antagonism that may shed light on their relationship or

153

154

Conclusion

lack of relationship? Our study of Owen offers the sense that perhaps the moderate Dissenters tended to be more theologically influenced while the latitudinarians were driven by more practical considerations. Is that sense a fair assessment? Although both groups were in favor of comprehension, was their reasoning congruent or at variance? Further study is required. Of course, there is much that remains to be culled from the works of Owen, whether from his historical work or the practical side of his pastoral ministry. With regard to his historical studies and how he traced the origins of a variety of rites and traditions in the church, there is a great deal for historians to unravel. His examination of the Second Nicene Council appears promising for recovery of seventeenth-century Trinitarianism and Christology. Regarding the more pastoral, both Charles Owen and Matthew Henry offer anecdotes and sayings from Owen that display the learning that comes from a great deal of experience. His work as a Dissenting tutor has already borne fruit for scholars examining Dissenting academies, perhaps more can be found in that vein as well. James Owen represented a transition from the Puritans to their descendants, perhaps even to Evangelicalism of the eighteenth century. His consciousness of his Reformed identity and heritage played a significant role in his work and writings. To understand Owen is to understand the changing world in which he lived, a world of new freedoms and old conflicts. Though he desired freedom of conscience, Owen appeared to be aware of the risks of absolute individualism. As a Baxterian, he represented a via media, as he tried to hold to purity but feared tyranny. The difficulty of maintaining this balance was great, but the level of difficulty would not determine his resolve. In his own words to his congregation regarding the Protestant cause, Owen said: Of all conquests that of the martyrs is the noblest. We must expect to suffer unto blood. He is not a Christian who is not a martyr in affection and resolution. Let not the prospect of a bloody exit discourage your faithful adherence to the truth; for he who has appointed our crown has appointed our cross. Better lose our lives than our immortal souls: Sad is the story in Mr. Fox of one who said, he could not burn for religion but his house being on fire, he was burnt in it.4

James Owen defended moderate nonconformity until his final breath.

4 Charles Owen, Some Account of the Life and Writings of the late Pious and Learned Mr. James Owen (London: 1709), p. 27.

Bibliography

Primary Sources Anonymous. Moderation Pursued. London: 1704. Anonymous. Notes upon the Lord Bishop of Salisbury’s Four Late Discourses to the Clergy of His Doicess [sic]. London: 1695. Astell, Mary. A Fair Way with the Dissenters and their Patrons London: 1704. –. Moderation Truly Stated: or, A Review of a Late Pamphlet, entitul’d Moderation a Vertue. London: 1704. Burnet, Gilbert. The Bishop of Salisbury’s Speech in the House of Lords, upon the Bill against Occasional Conformity. London: 1704. Calamy, Edmund. An Abridgement of Mr. Baxter’s History of His Life and Times. London: 1702. –. A Defence of Moderate Non-Conformity Part II. London: 1704. Defoe, Daniel. A Serious Inquiry into this Grand Question; whether a Law to prevent the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters would not be Inconsistent with the Act of Toleration, and a Breach of the Queen’s Promise. London: 1704. –. The Sincerity of the Dissenters Vindicated from the Scandal of Occasional Conformity. London: 1703. Delaune, Thomas. A Plea for the Non-Conformists. London: 1684. Gipps, Thomas. The Further Vindication, etc. of Mr. Owen Consider’d in a Letter to a Friend. London: 1699. –. The Rector of Bury’s Reply to the Minister at Oswestry’s Answer. London: 1699. –. Remarks on Remarks: Or, the Rector of Bury’s Sermon Vindicated. London: 1698. –. A Sermon Against Corrupting the Word of God. London: 1697. –. Tentamen Novum: Proving that Timothy and Titus were Diocesan Rulers of Ephesus and Crete. London: 1696. –. Tentamen Novum Continuatum. Or, an Answer to Mr. Owen’s Plea and Defence. London: 1699. Grascome, Samuel. The Mask of Moderation Pull’d off the Foul Face of Occasional Conformity; Being an Answer to a late Poisonous Pamphlet, entitul’d Moderation Still a Vertue. London: 1704. –. Occasional Conformity A Most Unjustifiable Practice. London: 1704. Haversham, John Thompson. The Speech of a Noble Peer Upon the Reading of the Bill for Preventing Occasional Conformity. London: 1704. Henry, Matthew. A Brief Enquiry Into the True Nature of Schism: Or a Persuasive to Christian Love and Charity. London: 1690.

156

Bibliography

–. The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, A.M., edited by J.B. Williams. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974. –. A sermon preach’d at the funeral of the Reverend Mr. James Owen. London: 1706. Leslie, Charles. The Wolf Stript of His Shepherd’s Cloathing, In Answer to a late Celebrated Book intitul’d, Moderation a Virtue. London: 1704. Mackworth, Sir Humphrey. Peace at Home, or a Vindication of the Proceedings of the Honourable House of Commons, on the Bill for Preventing Danger from Occasional Conformity. London: 1703. Owen, Charles. Some Account of the Life and Writings of the Late Pious and Learned Mr. James Owen. London: 1709. Owen, James. An Answer to the Rector of Bury’s Letter to His friend. London: 1609. –. Church-pageantry display’d: or, Organ Worship, Arraign’d and Condemn’d. London: 1700. –. A Further Vindication of the Dissenters from the Rector of Bury’s Unjust Accusations. London: 1699. –. The History of Images, and of Image-worship. London: 1709. –. The History of the Consecration of Altars, Temples and Churches. London: 1706. –. Moderation a Virtue: Or, the Occasional Conformist Justify’d from the Imputation of Hypocrisy. London: 1703. –. Moderation Still a Virtue: In Answer to Several Bitter Pamphlets. London: 1704. –. A Plea for Scripture Ordination. London: 1694. –. Remarks on a Sermon, About Corrupting the Word of God. London: 1697. –. Salvation Improved: In a Sermon upon the 16th of April 1696. London: 1696. –. Tutamen Evangelicum: or, A Defence of Scripture Ordination. London: 1697. –. The Validity of the Dissenting Ministry: or, the Ordaining Powers of Presbyters Evinced from the New Testament and Church History. London: 1716. Tallents, Francis. A Short History of Schism; for the promoting of Christian Moderation, and the Communion of Saints. Published by Charles Owen. London: 1705. –. Some Few Considerations upon Mr. S.G’s large Answer to the short history of Schism. London: 1706. Wagstaffe, Thomas. The Case of Moderation and Occasional Communion. London: 1705.

Secondary Sources Appleby, David. “From Ejectment to Toleration in England, 1662–89.” In The Great Ejectment of 1662: Its Antecedents, Aftermath, and Ecumenical Significance, edited by Alan P. F. Sell, pp. 67–124. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2012. Barnard, Leslie W. “The Use of the Patristic Tradition in the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries.” In Scripture, Tradition and Reason: A Study in the Criteria of Christian Doctrine, edited by Richard Bauckham and Benjamin Drewery. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988.

Secondary Sources

Bradley, James E. Religion, Revolution, and English Radicalism: Nonconformity in EighteenthCentury Politics and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. –. “Nonconformist Schools, The Schism Act, and the Limits of Toleration in England’s Confessional State.” In Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, edited by Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Systma, and Jason Zuidema, pp. 597–611. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Bradley, James E. and Dale K. Van Kley. Religion and Politics in Enlightenment Europe. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. Bradshaw, Paul F. The Anglican Ordinal: Its History and Development from the Reformation to the Present Day. London: SPCK, 1971. Burden, Mark. A Biographical Dictionary of Tutors at the Dissenters’ Private Academies, 1660–1729. London: Dr. Williams’s Centre for Dissenting Studies, 2013. Clark, J.C.D. English Society 1688–1832: Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice during the Ancien Regime. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. –. English Society 1660–1832: Religion, Ideology and Politics During the Ancient Regime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Claydon, Tony. “Latitudinarianism and Apocalyptic History in the Worldview of Gilbert Burnet, 1643–1715.” The Historical Journal 51, no. 3 (September 2008): pp. 577–597. –. William III and the Godly Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Cooper, Tim. Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England: Richard Baxter and Antinomianism. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2001. –. John Owen, Richard Baxter, and the Formation of Nonconformity. Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2011. Cornwall, Robert D., and William Gibson eds. Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–1832: Essays in Honour of James E. Bradley. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2010. Cornwall, Robert D. “The Church and Salvation: An Early Eighteenth-Century High Church Anglican Perspective.” In Anglican and Episcopal History 62, no. 2 (June 1993), pp. 175–191. –. Visible and Apostolic: The Constitution of the Church in High Church Anglican and Non-Juror Thought. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993. Cruickshanks, Eveline, ed. By Force or By Default?: The Revolution of 1688–1689. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd, 1989. Dale, R. W. History of English Congregationalism. Completed and edited by A.W.W. Dale. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907. Deschamps, Yannick. “Daniel Defoe’s Contribution to the Dispute over Occasional Conformity: An Insight into Dissent and ‘Moderation’ in the Early Eighteenth Century.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 46, no. 3 (Spring 2013): pp. 349–361. Field, David P. ‘Rigide Calvinisme in a Softer Dresse’: The Moderate Presbyterianism of John Howe (1630–1705). Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2004. Flaningam, John. “The Occasional Conformity Controversy: Ideology and Party Politics, 1697–1711.” In The Journal of British Studies 17, no. 1 (Autumn, 1977).

157

158

Bibliography

Gibson, William. The Church of England 1688–1832: Unity and Accord. London: Routledge, 2001. –. “Dissenters, Anglicans, and the Glorious Revolution.” The Seventeenth Century 22, no. 1 (February 2007): pp. 168–84. –. Enlightenment Prelate: Benjamin Hoadly, 1676–1761. Cambridge: James Clarke, 2004. –. James II and the Trial of the Seven Bishops. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Gregory, Jeremy. Restoration, Reformation and Reform, 1660–1828: Archbishops of Canterbury and their Diocese. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. –. “Standards for Admission to the Ministry of the Church of England in the Eighteenth Century.” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 83, no. 1 (2003): pp. 283–295. Grell, Ole Peter, Jonathan I. Israel, and Nicholas Tyacke, eds. From Persecution to Toleration: The Glorious Revolution and Religion in England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Harris, Tim, Pau Seaward, and Mark Goldie, eds. The Politics of Religion in Restoration England. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1990. Heal, Felicity. “Appropriating History: Catholic and Protestant Polemics and the National Past.” Huntington Library Quarterly 68, no. 1–2 (March 2005): pp. 109–132. Hill, Bracy V. II. “The Language of Dissent: The Defense of Eighteenth-Century English Dissent in the Works and Sermons of James Peirce.” Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2010. Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution: 1603–1714. London: Routledge, 2002. Holmes, Geoffrey, ed. Britain after the Glorious Revolution 1689–1714. London: Macmillan, 1969. –. British Politics in the Age of Anne. London: Hambledon Press, 1987. –. The Making of a Great Power: late Stuart and early Georgian Britain, 1660–1722. New York: Longman, 1993. –. The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell. London: Eyre Methuen Ltd, 1973. Jacob, W.M. “Supervising the pastors: Supervision and Discipline of the Clergy in Norfolk in the Eighteenth Century.” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 83, no. 1 (2003): pp. 296–308. Jenkins, Geraint H. Literature, Religion and Society in Wales 1660–1730. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1978. Jenkins, Philip. “Church, nation and language: The Welsh Church.” In The National Church in Local Perspective: The Church of England and the Regions, 1660–1800, edited by Jeremy Gregory and Jeffrey S. Chamberlain. Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 2003. Keeble, N. H., ed. The Autobiography of Richard Baxter. London: Dent, 1974. –. Richard Baxter: Puritan Man of Letters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Knights, Mark. “Occasional Conformity and the Representation of Dissent: Hypocrisy, Sincerity, Moderation and Zeal.” In Parliamentary History: Parliament and Dissent, edited by Stephen Taylor and David L. Wykes, pp. 41–57. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005.

Secondary Sources

Lacey, Douglas R. Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England, 1661–1689. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1969. Lamont, William M. Richard Baxter and the Millennium: Protestant Imperialism and the English Revolution. London: Croom Helm, 1979. Lim, Paul Chang-Ha. In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Context. Leiden: Brill, 2004. McElligot, Jason, ed. Fear, Exclusion and Revolution: Roger Morrice and Britain in the 1680s. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006. McGregor, J.F. and B. Reay, eds. Radical Religion in the English Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Miller, John. Popery and Politics in England 1660–1688. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Milton, Michael A. “The Application of the Theology of the Westminster Assembly in the Ministry of the Welsh Puritan, Vavasor Powell (1617–1670).” Ph.D. diss., University Wales, Lampeter, 1998. Nuttal, Geoffrey F. Richard Baxter. London: Nelson, 1965. Quantin, Jean-Louis. The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of Confessional Identity in the 17th Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. –. “The Fathers in Seventeenth Century Anglican Theology.” In The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, volume 2, edited by Irena Backus. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Ramsbottom, John D. “Presbyterians and ‘Partial Conformity’ in the Restoration Church of England.” In Journal of Ecclesiastical History 43, no. 2 (April 1992): pp. 249–270. Rees, Thomas. History of Protestant Nonconformity in Wales, from its rise in 1633 to the present time. London: 1883. Roberts, Hannah Cowell. “Re-Examining Welsh Catholicism, c. 1660–1700.” D. Phil. diss., Swansea University, 2014. Roundy, Charles William. “Edmund Calamy (1671–1732): The Principles and Foundations of Dissent.” Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1975. Rupp, Gordon. Religion in England 1688–1791. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. Rutherford, Susan. “Reformation Principles: The Religious and Political Ideas of Benjamin Hoadly (1676–1761).” Ph.D. diss., University of Northumbria at Newcastle, 2000. Sarkela, Sandra. “Moderation, Religion, and Public Discourse: The Rhetoric of Occasional Conformity in England, 1697–1711.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 15, no. 1 (Winter 1997): pp. 53–79. Seed, John. Dissenting Histories: Religious Division and the Politics of Memory in EighteenthCentury England. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd, 2008. Shagan, Ethan. “Beyond Good and Evil: Thinking with Moderates in Early Modern England.” Journal of British Studies 49, no. 3 (July 2010): pp. 488–513. Spellman, W.M. The Latitudinarians and the Church of England, 1660–1700. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1993.

159

160

Bibliography

Spivey, James Travis Jr. “Middle Way Men, Edmund Calamy, and the Crises of Moderate Nonconformity (1688–1732).” Ph.D. diss., University of Oxford, 1986. Spurr, John. “The Church of England, Comprehension and the Toleration Act of 1689.” The English Historical Review 104, no. 413 (Oct., 1989): pp. 927–946. –. “‘Latitudinarianism’ and the Restoration Church.” The Historical Journal 31 (March 1988): pp. 61–82. –. The Restoration Church of England, 1646–1689. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. –. “‘A special kindness for dead bishops’: The Church, History, and Testimony in SeventeenthCentury Protestantism.” Huntington Library Quarterly 68, no. 1–2 (March 2005): pp. 313–334. Starkie, Andrew. The Church of England and the Bangorian Controversy, 1716–1721. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2007. Sutherland, Martin. Peace, Toleration and Decay: The Ecclesiology of Later Stuart Dissent. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2003. Sykes, Norman. Church and State in England in the XVIIIth Century. New York: Octagon Books, 1975. –. From Sheldon to Secker: Aspects of Church History 1660–1768. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Thianto, Yudha. “Baptismal practice and Trinitarian Belief in Joseph Bingham’s Origines Ecclesiasticae.” Ph.D. diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2006. Thomas, Roger. “Comprehension and Indulgence.” In From Uniformity to Unity, edited by O. Chadwick and G.F. Nuttal, 189–254. London: SPCK, 1962. Trueman, Carl. “Richard Baxter on Christian Unity: A Chapter in the Enlightening of English Reformed Orthodoxy.” In Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999): 53–71. Walsh, John, Colin Haydon, and Stephen Taylor, eds., The Church of England, c. 1689–c. 1833: From Toleration to Tractarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Warner, Rebecca Louise. “Early Eighteenth Century Low Churchmanship: The Glorious Revolution to the Bangorian Controversy.” Ph.D. diss., University of Reading, 1999. Warren, Jonathan Edward. “Polity, Piety, and Polemic: Giles Firmin and the Transatlantic Puritan Tradition.” Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 2014. Watts, Michael. The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. Wentz, Abdel Ross ed. Word and Sacrament II. Vol. 36 of Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959. White, Eryn M. “From Ejectment to Toleration in Wales, 1662–89.” In The National Church in Local Perspective: The Church of England and the Regions, 1660–1800, edited by Jeremy Gregory and Jeffrey S. Chamberlain. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2003. Whitehouse, Tessa. The Textual Culture of English Protestant Dissent 1720–1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Williams, J.B., ed. The Lives of Philip and Matthew Henry. Two volumes in one. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974.

Index of Subjects

A Act of Uniformity 12, 20, 21, 28–31, 37, 42, 52, 54, 66, 69, 91, 94, 128, 129, 152 Acts 6 97, 99, 100, 114 Acts 20 92, 99, 112 Anglicanism 10, 11, 15–18, 29, 30, 58, 68, 69, 79, 94, 108, 114, 122–125, 131, 144, 151–153 apostolic succession 18, 92, 93, 110–112, 144 B Bangorian Controversy 15, 17 Baptist(s) 31, 34, 43, 95 Baxterian 12, 19, 20, 154 Book of Common Prayer 28, 29, 41, 106, 128, 130, 133 Breda Declaration 129 Broad Oak 51, 52 C Calvin, Calvinism 19, 45, 64, 85 Camarthen Castle 46 Cambridge 37, 94 Cappadocian fathers 82 catechism, catechizing 16, 41, 44 catholic communion 22, 147 Catholicism 17, 31–35, 39, 41, 77, 78, 87, 88, 93, 124, 153 catholicity 51, 108 charity 41, 54–56, 58, 60–64, 66–68, 70, 131, 137, 151 church fathers 67, 71, 79, 80, 83, 99, 117 Civil War 27, 30, 46, 127, 133, 145 Clarendon Code 29–31, 152 Collection of Cases 17, 36

comprehension 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 29, 35, 36, 45, 50, 62, 121, 122, 125, 127–131, 135, 145, 154 Compton Census 32 Congregationalists 11, 12, 34, 128 conscience 15, 35, 47, 55, 60, 63, 65, 69, 70, 73, 77, 100, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112–114, 121, 127, 130, 134, 137, 141, 145, 152–154 Constantinople 67, 68, 80, 83, 84, 107 conventicle 37, 46, 123, 126 Conventicle Act 28, 128 Corporation Act 29 D Declaration of Indulgence 35 diocesan bishop 66, 75, 91, 96–99, 101, 105, 109, 146 Dissenting academies 9, 14, 21, 37, 39, 42, 49, 151, 154 divine right 92, 94, 144 E ecclesiola in ecclesia 45 Ejection of 1662 12, 28, 45, 46, 128 Elizabethan Act of Uniformity 29 essentials 15, 19, 43, 55, 57, 58, 137, 143, 146 Exclusion bills 33 Exclusion Parliaments 33 external communion 60 F Fourth century

80, 82, 87, 153

162

Index of Subjects

G general council 83, 84, 107 Glorious Revolution 11, 12, 17 H hermeneutics 76, 78, 85, 98, 106, 115, 117, 118, 132 High Churchmen 14, 37, 138, 140, 143, 147, 148 I idols, idolatry 82–84 impositions 60, 62, 64, 65, 70, 142, 145, 153 Independents 50, 111, 128 Interregnum 27, 93, 127 inward call 111 ius divinum 93 J Jerusalem Council Jesuits 53, 75, 89 Joannites 67, 68 John 17 59

113

L latitudinarians 18, 19, 122, 125, 153, 154 Lordship of Christ 55, 64, 69, 77, 103, 113 Low Churchmen 14, 19, 57, 139, 140 M marks of a church 66, 74, 148, 153 Ministry of Word and Sacrament 100, 110 Monmouth Rebellion 33, 122 N Nicene Council 80, 83 non-essentials 19, 58, 60, 137 non-resistance 29 O Occasional Conformity Bill 23, 123, 127 Oswestry 39, 47, 48, 51, 92 Owen-Gipps Debate 98

P parish priests 96, 101 partial conformity 34, 46, 50, 121 pluralism 18, 28, 38, 71, 149, 153 Popish Plot 33 primacy of scripture 76, 152 private judgment 65, 105, 112, 113, 153 Protestant ecumenism 15, 153 providence 48, 74, 78, 89, 118 Q Quakers

34, 115

R Reformed churches 11, 17, 18, 86, 93, 133, 137, 147 reformers 74, 85–87, 101, 148 religious liberty 32, 35 Romans 14 56, 60 rule of faith 77, 108, 109 Rye House Plot 33, 122 S Savoy Conference 29 Schism Act 14 Second Nicene Council 82, 84, 85, 154 separatists 30, 35, 128 Seven bishops 35, 36 Shrewsbury 39, 48, 53 Solemn League and Covenant 130 Swansea 47 T Test Act(s) 32, 34, 35, 121, 122, 130, 135, 136 Thirty-Nine Articles 93, 128, 130, 133, 148 Toleration Act 9, 14, 37, 64, 73, 78 true church 15, 45, 59, 61, 62, 66, 74, 93, 133, 148, 152, 153 typology 79, 117

Index of Subjects

U universal church 15, 69, 121, 133, 136, 143, 146, 147

V visible church

44, 45, 50, 59, 69, 144, 146

W Worcestershire Association

46

163

Index of Persons

A Aquinas 79 Astell, Mary 22, 124, 125, 132, 139–143, 145 Augustine 59, 80 B Baxter, Richard 12, 20–22, 42, 45, 50–52, 54, 57, 72, 86, 114, 121, 128, 136, 152 Bellarmine, Robert 83, 87 Bilson, Thomas 93 Burnet, Gilbert 126 C Calamy, Edmund 9, 19–21, 42, 53–55, 58, 60, 62–65, 69, 70, 86, 95 Charles II 11, 28, 30–34, 46, 121, 129, 136 Chorlton, John 95, 96 Chrysostom 67, 68, 79, 80, 133 Clement of Alexandria 79, 80 Constantine 80–82, 87, 153 Cranmer, Thomas 85 Cyprian 61, 67, 69, 144 D Defoe, Daniel 22, 23, 36, 124, 126, 131, 132, 137, 139–143 Delaune, Thomas 95, 97 Doddridge, Philip 49 Dodwell, Henry 91, 94 E Earl of Danby 32 Edwards, Jane 47 Edwin, Sir Humphrey Eusebius 69, 107

37

G George, Sarah 47 Gipps, Thomas 75, 77, 93, 94, 97, 111 Gouge, Thomas 41 Grascome, Samuel 53, 59, 124, 125, 139, 141–144 H Hammond, Henry 94 Harley, Robert 23 Henry, Matthew 9, 48, 52–58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 70, 91, 96, 154 Henry, Philip 30, 50–53, 55, 57, 63, 91, 92, 136 Heywood, Oliver 50 Hoadly, Benjamin 15, 18, 119 Hooker, Richard 59, 110 Hooper, John 85 Hough, Elizabeth 47 Howe, John 19, 21, 35, 54 Howell, James 47 Hughes, Stephen 39, 41, 47 I Ignatius 108, 109, 111, 113 Irenaeus 80 J James II 13, 17, 19, 34 Jerome 111, 133 Jones, Samuel 42, 46 Justin Martyr 79 K King William III

32, 36, 37, 78, 127, 130

166

Index of Persons

L Leslie, Charles 124, 125, 131, 134, 138–140, 142–144 Lloyd, William 48, 51, 91, 92 M Mackworth, Humphrey 126, 127 Maurice, Henry 41, 47 N Nivet, Rowland 47 O Owen, Charles 21, 39, 41, 47, 92, 98, 154 Owen, Hugh 47 P Picton, James 46 Q Queen Anne 22, 37, 121, 127 R Reynolds, Thomas 54

S Sacheverell, Henry 14, 15, 22, 36, 37, 149, 151 Sancroft, William 35, 125 Sheldon, Gilbert 31 Sherlock, Thomas 59 Stillingfleet, William 59 T Tallents, Francis 52, 53, 56, 57, 59–63, 67–69, 125 Thompson, Sir John 126, 138 U Usher, James

110

W Wagstaffe, Thomas 22, 140, 141, 143, 144 Watts, Isaac 49 Williams, Daniel 54, 99, 100 Wycliffe, John 107 Z Zwingli, Ulrich

85