.
Subsection
Occasional & Partial Conformity without Sin
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 2
Books 5+
Quotes 3
History 4
.
Articles
1500’s
Bradshaw, William – A Trial of Subscription, by way of a Preface unto Certain Subscribers; & Reasons for less Rigor against Non-subscribers (Middelburg: R. Schilders], 1599) 28 pp.
.
1600’s
Gillespie, George – pp. 8-9 of p. 2, ch. 1 of English Popish Ceremonies (1637)
“The position therefore which we mantain… from which we will not depart the breadth of one nail, is this, that we can never lawfully conform (no not in the case of deprivation [of the ministerial office]) unto any ceremony which is scandalous and inconvenient in the use of it.” – p. 9
.
Books
1500’s
Calvin, John – The Sinfulness of Outward Conformity to Romish Rites in Tracts Relating to the Reformation tr. Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844-1851), vol. 2, pp. 358-413 Also known as On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly…
.
1600’s
Bradshaw, William – A Mild & Just Defence of Certain Arguments at the Last Session of Parliament directed to that most Honorable High Court, in behalf of the Ministers Suspended & Deprived, etc. for not Subscribing & Conforming themselves etc., against an intemperate & unjust consideration of them by Mr. Gabriel Powell… ([W. Jones’ Secret Press] 1606) 163 pp.
Calderwood, David
The Course of Conformity, as it has Proceeded, as it is Concluded & as it Should be Refused (1622) 130 pp.
This work is primarily against episcopacy as it especially grew in Scotland after the Assembly of Perth (1618). Some attribute it to William Scot (c. 1558-1642) or James Melville. Thomas M’Crie assigned it to Calderwood.
The Pastor & the Prelate, or Reformation & Conformity shortly Compared by the Word of God, by Antiquity… ([Holland?] 1628) 75 pp.
This is a dialogue between a Scottish pastor and a prelate, contrasting the theology and characteristics of them.
Henry Burton – Conformity’s Deformity. In a Dialogue Between Conformity & Conscience. Wherein the Main Head of All the Controversies in These Times Concerning Church-Government is Asserted & Maintained… (London, 1646) 27 pp.
Burton was an Independent, English puritan.
Baxter, Richard – An Apology for the Nonconformists’ Ministry, containing: I. the Reasons of their Preaching, II. an Answer to the accusations urged as reasons for the silencing of about 2000… III. Reasons proving it the Duty and interest of the Bishops and Conformists to endeavour earnestly their restoration… (1668-1669; 1675; London: 1681) 249 pp. ToC
Baxter did not hold that unjustly defrocked ministers were to preach any and everywhere, but only where there was real need and justification for it, preserving and encouraging the regular parish ministry so far as able, and complementing it, due to the great need in England at that time and in those circumstances.
“6. We believe that lawful rulers have power to forbid such ministers to preach in this or that place, or anywhere in their dominions, whose preaching is such as tends to do more harm than good.
7. Had we any reasonable conviction that our ministry is unnecessary, we would obey our rulers, though they silenced us causlessly, and would seek some other place or way of serving God.
8. In those times, places, and circumstances which perswade us that more hurt than good will come by it if we preach, we will then and there forbear it, though it be not as an act of formal o∣bedience, nor a desertion of our office, or of the exercise of it at other times.
9. We judge it our duty to further the good success of the conformable ministers to the utmost of our power.
10. And we take schism to be a great sin, and that which we are bound to do the best we can not only to avoid ourselves, but to cure or hinder in others.” – p. 240
MacWard, Robert – The True Non-Conformist in Answer to the Modest & Free Conference Betwixt a Conformist & a Non-Conformist About the Present Distempers of Scotland (1671) ToC
MacWard (1633?-1687) was the protege of Samuel Rutherford. He here defends the non-conforming presbyterians during the era of persecution in Scotland against the criticisms of an episcopal Scottish minister, shortly turned Anglican, Gilbert Burnet (1643–1715).
.
Quotes
Order of
Rutherford
Burton
Baxter
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
The Due Right of Presbyteries… (1644), pt. 2, ch. 4, section 5, p. 194
“…’It is a public offence’ (says the Author [an opponent]) ‘that they have worshipped God according to the precepts of men, etc.’
[Rutherford’s] Answer: This is the crime of conformity which I wish were publicly repented by all which have defiled themselves with submitting to an antichristian government and the will-worship of men, yet does not this make ministers no ministers, so as they must receive ordination to the ministry of new. Peter’s fall took not away his apostleship, nor Jonah’s flying from God, nor David’s adultery made them not leave off to be prophets.”
.
Henry Burton
Conformity’s Deformity. In a Dialogue Between Conformity & Conscience. Wherein the Main Head of all the Controversies in These Times Concerning Church-Government is Asserted & Maintained… (London, 1646), pp. 11-14, 23-4
“For this mystery of iniquity [of conformity] had its first rise even in the apostles’ times, it began then to work. And what was this mystery of iniquity, but an exaltation of man’s power above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so as to sit upon, or over, or in the Temple of God, over the consciences of God’s people, and over the Church as God Himself?
And note there also, it is called an ‘apostasy’, or (as Tit. 1:14) a turning away from, or of the truth (as afore) and such are adversaries too, and all Antichristian. Such an one was Diotrephes; that [in Greek], who loved the preeminence (the very spawn of this mystery) which sets him a work to raise himself:
1. In not receiving the apostle John;
2. In prating against him with malicious words;
3. In not receiving the brethren;
4. In forbidding those that would;
And 5. In casting them out of the Church.
Thus also did this mystery begin to work, as the apostle intimates both in Tit. 1:14 and in Col. 2:8,17,18, 20, 22, 23. But then this mystery was but in the swaddling clouts, which afterward growing by degrees to the full stature, was so bedecked with infinite varieties of ceremonies, and daily new fashions in religion (as the crow with every bird’s feather) that getting an unlimited, usurped power, and that under the color of Jure Divino [by divine right], all men’s consciences, churches must conform to the present fashion of worship and Church-government.
Thus by degrees this Mystery of iniquity mounted to its height, and has now obtained such a prescription of antiquity, as is equivalent to a law. And not only the Pope claims and exercises this power over his whole Popedom and Hierarchy, but from him our late Prelates. And whence, or from whom you derive this very power, unless immediately either from the Pope or from our late Prelates, whose personal Prelacy you have abandoned, saving their Prelatical spirit and usurped power: or else from the antiquity of this mystery; you may do well to inform us.
And in truth, this was that very sluice, which when first opened, did let in that inundation and deluge not only of will-worship, in all kind of ceremonies and superstitions, but also of human forms and frames of Church-government, and in all of them such a tyrannical power over all consciences and Churches as has wholly drowned all; so as Christ’s Dove can nowhere find where to set her foot. And therefore in this time of pretended Reformation, to erect this great idol, to wit, a power in man to prescribe laws and to legitimate commandments for worship and Church government, and to press them upon every man’s conscience: what is it, but with Nebuchadnezzar to erect his golden image and with an immortal law of the Medes and Persians, to bind all men to fall down and worship it?
Or what is it, but with Jeroboam and his counsel (and so in every alteration of the State) to set up the golden calves with a strict commandment of universal conformity; none daring among all those Ten Tribes openly to profess the pure worship of God, saving the prophet Eliah, to whom those seven thousand were not known. And therefore God rooted out Jeroboam’s house; and did the Tribes escape scot-free for their yielding willing obedience to the commandment of the king’s counsel, though it were a public act of State? Was not Ephraim oppressed and broken in judgement because he willingly walked after the commandment?
For God set wicked kings over them, who oppressed and brake them in judgement, tyrannizing at their pleasure. As always where a people is brought under the spiritual yoke of bondage, they are never free from the temporal. Nor only this, but they were carried into perpetual captivity and never returned unto this day. An example to be laid to heart both of rulers and people.
Remember Ephraim therefore, the horribleness of whose sin appears by the horribleness of the punishment. And like to this is that of Jerusalem and of the Jews. They said indeed, ‘If we thus let Him alone, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.’ No, blind Jews, because ye did renounce your King Christ, and so envy the people’s salvation, therefore the Romans came and took away both your place and nation.
And how did the Jews reject this their King? Christ tells us in a parable of a nobleman, Luke 19, saying (v. 14), But his citizens hated him and sent a message after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’ Where note:
First, they were such as professed to be the people of God, His citizens.
Secondly, the ground of their refusal of Him to be their king was hatred of Him, and so to refuse Him is to hate Him.
Thirdly, the manner of their refusal:
1. They sent a message after Him (as the vulgar translation renders it), but the original is, ‘They sent [in Greek] an ambassage after Him,’ which is more then a message. It must be done by a public act of State, to make all cock-sure.
And 2. the matter of the ambassage, ‘We will not have this man, or this fellow ([in Greek]) this, noting their contempt of Him. And the reason hereof was their will: ‘We will not.’
But what was the issue? Read and mark it, v. 27, where Christ not long after returns in judgement against them, which He executes by those very Romans whom they so feared, to whom He gives this commission: ‘But those mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them, etc.’ which was done accordingly.
…
Such as conform to a State religion, or a State church-government, make that the supreme law and lord over their conscience, and so exclude Christ’s supremacy. Enough is said of that. But you cut me off from what I was about to add:
Man’s nature is too prone to idolize the Power so, as to make it as the shadow of the bramble, in Jotham’s parable, under which to ease themselves of the labor to search into the Scriptures and so to come to know what they believe; most men pinning their religion upon the sleeve either of the priest, as the Papists do, or also of the magistrate, as our common Protestants do, wrapping all up in an implicit faith and blind obedience, according to your Remonstrance that urges conformity to the religion and government of Christ already established, or which shall be set up.
Thus it was enough for the Pharisees to say, ‘We have a law, and by that law Christ ought to die.’ Thus Christ must not be God, because the Roman Senate, according to their law formerly made, had not first motioned it, or passed their vote for it, before Tiberius Caesar had commended it to them, namely to admit of Christ into their pantheon to take place among their gods. And is it not even so with us? Must not Christ be King of the Jews, only because by an act of State (as before) they will not have this man to reign over them. And Christ must not be God, because the Roman Senate had not pre-resolved it. And so Christ must not be sole Lord over the conscience, nor sole Lawgiver of his Church, nor his Word the sole rule of worship and of Christ’s Kingly government of his spiritual Kingdom in the conscience, and Churches of the saints, nor indeed Christ’s kingdom-spiritual, because the Sate has made a law which must rule the conscience in point of forms of worship and of Church-government, that Christ’s kingdom must be worldly…”
.
Richard Baxter
Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684)
section 2, pp. 12-14
“22. They that think that conforming ministers are guilty of great sin must consider what diversity of education, company and interest may do, even on men of conscience, and that we have all our sins. And it’s sinful uncharitableness to think and speak worse of them than they deserve and to talk against all for the faults of some.
…
24. The religion that keeps possession of the parish churches¹ will be the national religion: Mourn therefore before God that ever any men professing godliness should either labor to get all sound Protestants to desert the parish churches or that any such have been against the restoring of nonconformists by that called a ‘comprehension’, which was but the withdrawing of such impositions as these very men thought sinful, and all this, lest it should diminish the number and strength of the private churches. By this we see what we are doing against ourselves, if God save us not.
¹ [The Anglican parish churches tended to have a simpler and more plain and Scriptural worship than the cathedral churches of the cities, which had many more human and showy additions. Many of the older non-conformist ministers that separated from the cathedral worship yet would not separate in principle from the parish churches. Baxter was of this mind.]
25. They that say conformists convert no souls take on them to know that of thousands which they know not: and forget that before 1640 there were few but conformists to convert them in the land, and that all the Westminster Assembly, save eight, were such.† And that the parliament kept near 7,000 in the ministry that all conformed on Aug. 24, 1662.²”
† [Note that strict uniformity and express subscription to the imposed Anglican service became much more universal at 1662 with the Great Ejection. Before that enforcement was much more spotty and there were often many more ways for faithful ministers in the Anglican Church to avoid the pertinent sinful practices. For a summary of the earlier diversity, see Baxter, The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace (London, 1679), 7. ‘Some Matters of Fact Preparatory…’, sect. 3, pp. 121-22; James Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue (1704), pp. 42-44.
Owen also documents that many of the Westminster divines were only occasional and partial conformists. Baxter says in the forecited work of the large share of Westminster divines that they, “thought conformity lawful in case of [ministerial] deprivation, but the things imposed to be a snare, which should be removed if it could be lawfully done…” (p. 127) For that view argued from just before that time, see John Sprint, Cassander Anglicanus, showing the Necessity of Conformity to the Prescribed Ceremonies of our Church in Case of Deprivation (London: Bill, 1623).]
² [The number that did not conform has been estimated to be around 2,000.]
…
28. So great is the peace and comfort of many parishes where the public ministers and all the religious people live together in love and amity that it loudly tells us how much better that is than to study to render each other odious, or vile and excommunicable.
29. Such use of godly public ministers [in the parish churches] may well stand with the best improvement we can make of the private help of others.”
30. If we would win any that we think worst of, yea, or ease ourselves [of their treatment of us], it must be by love to them and not by condemning them on controvertible accounts or by causeless singularities.
…
35. It is not only the law of man that makes the foresaid parish communion a duty,ª but it is God’s law of love, concord, peace and universal communion, if there were no constraining law of man.”
.
section 5, ‘A comparison of the use of a faulty translation of the Scripture and a faulty liturgy’
“Passion, provoked by some men’s badness, has too much conquered love to conformists in some men’s minds so that they scruple not too uncharitable opinions and words of them. This is contrary to Christian love. I doubt not but there were hundredsº of godly conformable ministers in England on Aug. 24 1662. Seven thousand or more did conform that had been kept in in the [puritan] Parliament’s time [1640’s to 1650’s]; were all those seven thousand tolerable the year before and ungodly the next year? Many conformists now in London were taken for very good men in 1659. At once the other extreme [of people] most study to get them out [of the establishment]; and shall we also call all men on pain of hazarding their souls to forsake them?
º [Note that he does not say thousands.]
A very great Churchman above 40 years ago was heard say to his brethren:
‘The non-conformable puritans are snakes. We have the law against them and can tread them down when we will: But it is the conformable puritan that is the devil of England, to be cast out.’
And shall we second this, and that as in opposition to it? Grace is lost as far as Christian, impartial love is lost. And they that lose religion themselves, which lies in love, are likely to be no good keepers of it in the Church.
If a good man that we value become a danger to the truth, we are angry if his error be but contradicted, lest his name be blemished: But some dare say the conformists are all false, ready to betray the Church to Papists, who now do far more to keep them out than we do. This is against Lam. 3:17 [“Thou hast removed my soul far off from peace.”].
If there be any such conformists high or low, I am none of their advocate;ª God will find them out and judge them. But I am confident that it is also conformists (by the advantage of their possession) that will do more to stop their [Papists] desired success than nonconformists can do.
ª [Regarding full lay-conformity to Anglicanism after 1662, as required by law, Baxter lists 12 things he refused as sinful and/or irrational: The English Nonconformity (1689), ch. 4, pp. 22-23. Regarding ministerial conformity, he lists 40 things just before it in the same chapter: pp. 17-22.]
I am sure Bishop [John] Jewel, [James] Ussher, [Thomas] Morton, [Joseph] Hall, [George] Downame, [John] Davenant, etc. were far from Popery. And what man living has written stronglier against it than Dr. Isaac Barrow (against whose book a doctor has newly dashed his reputation, as a bubble against a rock: And what the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Hereford, Dr. Peter Moulin, Dr. Stillingfleet, and many more have done, is known.
Your [non-conformist puritan] Mr. Matthew Mead once commended a conformist for a benefice to me with these words, ‘I take him to be the holiest man I know;’ I have loved him the better ever since for his candor, charity and impartiality.”
.
History
On the Post-Reformation Anglican Church
Primary Sources
Articles
Baxter, Richard – Section 7, ‘Some Matters of Fact Preparatory…’ in The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679), pp. 118-41
Baxter (1615–1691) gives a comprehensible and fascinating concise sketch of the history of Church conformity and non-conformity, in relation to political matters as well, from the beginning of the Prayer-Book to his own day. He was a first hand observer for much of the latter half of it. Where many historians admit perplexity about the confusing events, Baxter gives what he and others about him understood to be the causative factors and motivations for such, making a coherent, connected narrative.
.
Outline
Intro
1549-1552 Service-Book & Following
1. Origin, differences & consensus with Prayer-Book
2. Conflict at Frankfurt: Knox vs. Cox
3. Various survival tactics of non-conformists to 1640
1630’s & Rise of Laud’s Party
4. Dissensions amongst old and new conformists: Laud & new rising party: Arminianism, conciliation with Rome, property
5. Parliament’s involvement
6. Principles of Jewel, Bilson & R. Hooker
7. 1637-39: new ceremonies, persecution by Laud, alienation to bishops
1640’s, Parliament & Civil Wars
8. Parliament’s Fears, Parliament sits
9. 1641 Irish kill 200,000 persons
10. Irish claim King’s commission, safety lies in Parliament’s defense
11. 1642 Civil war, Parliament mostly conformists, presbytery little known
12. Parliament’s fear of new rising party & response
13. First open issue: about militia. Lietenants appointed by Parliament almost all episcopal conformists
14. Same with general officers, colonels, majors etc.
Solemn League & Covenant, 1643, Westminster, to Cromwell, 1648
15. Parliament’s armies worsted, seek help of Scots, who pose SL&C as condition (1643), Parliament accepts rather than lose them, not imposed by force, opposition to prelacy an occasion of division, some take due to its lack of teeth
16. Most Westminster divines were conformists in case of deprivation, thinking the ceremonies a snare, they also took the SL&C, which only prohibits prelacy, not episcopacy, which many held moderately
17. SL&C a test for who Parliament could trust, then imposed. Many ministers and gentlemen refused it, also Cromwell’s soldiers, in many counties few took it
18. Pariament generally contrary to presbyterianism except for London, Lancashire and Coventry, where it was not imposed, but a tolerated or commended thing. It came to nothing shortly
King Executed, 1649, Cromwell’s Commonwealth to 1658
19. Parliament fought for “King and Parliament” till New Model Army, then only for “Parliament”, many deserted and sectaries joined Cromwell, who conquered, purged Parliament and executed King Charles I. Set up Commonwealth, sequestration of ministers that refused, Cromwell invades Scotland, sets up their own Parliament in England, Cromwell made Protector, rescued parish ministry, tithes and universities from sectaries
20. This all called “New Causes and Changes”, many presbyterian ministers against all this, some imprisoned, etc. Sober religious people become disaffected to new policies
21. Parish church ministers of every variety of view of Church government, many were not committed to one view
22. Many counties exercised a Church government of lowest common denominator for Episcopalians, presbyterians and Independents with love and concord, till 1659
Transition to Restoration of King Charles II, 1658-1660
23. Cromwell died, 1658, his son ejected, kingdom shamed for confusions, desire to restore King Charles II
24. First open united endeavors against Army to restore the King, including with (non-conformist) ministers who since were silenced and ruined
25. Division of the opposers, the Army and Commonwealth members, ruined them. Old Parliamentarians, Royalists, presbyterians, other ministers with Episcopal unified and restored King. Presbyterian officers of Army et al. turned against the Opposers, which turned the scales, no further resistance, Parliament prepares for King’s return, Baxter, Calamy, Gauden preach, King invited to return
26. Many for healing principles, concord, against revenge
27. Many non-conformists for return of King, necessary terms of concord with much yielding settled. King publishes ‘Gracious Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs’ which seemed to heal almost all breaches
Setting up the Restoration Church, 1660-1662
28. Chancellor gave bishoprics and deaneries to persons of concord
29. King agrees to alterations of Service-Book necessary for tender consciences, Savoy Conference with 12 bishops and 12 presbyterians and Independents to make recommendations to King, presbyterian party handed in 8 instances of “flat sin”, half of one instance handled, others passed over
Great Ejection, 1662
30. King’s “Gracious Declaration” died, Parliament made Act of Uniformity, 1662, above 2,000 ministers ejected and silenced on severe penalties
31. Protestation of some that “nothing but the fear of sin and God’s displeasure should hinder them from conformity, deprecating the woful effects of the division,” requesting abatements
32. Those ejected included:
1. Episcopalians, along the lines of Hooker, for Parliament’s War, for liturgy and ceremonies, who would otherwise conform;
2. Greatest part were “disengaged pacificators”;
3. presbyterians;
4. Independents, who were few;
5. Non-conformists for some things, not all (e.g. Perkins, Bayne, et al.) who otherwise sought to conform upon pain of deprivation.
Those who conformed known as “The New Conformity”.
33. “Presbyterian” became a label of reproach and applied by conformists to all non-conformists at this time, including presbyterians, independents, episcopalians and those neutral.
34. Older non-conformists were ordained by diocesan bishops; younger ones by assemblies of parish pastors, no other route being allowed
Blame & Complex Factors
35. Many charge the civil wars on the non-conformists, each party charges other sides. The truth:
1. Far more non-conformists were for the old Parliament than the late sort of Prelatists.
2. Some sectaries and some hot for Parliament did conform.
3. Some few in the King’s Army or cause, that suffered for him, were against the SL&C, were non-conformists.
4. Many more of the old Episcopal conformists were for Parliament, in contrast to the later sort.
5. Archbishop of York was one of Parliament’s army commanders.
6. Most ministers are dead that were in that war.
7. The Westminster Assembly was of almost all conformists.
8. So small is the number of the present silenced ministers that had any hand in the wars, that if they alone were ejected, the case would be judged easily and thankfully accepted. Most were youths in those years.
9. All the wars since the 1640’s were far from being owned by the common sort of present non-conformists
10. Parliament men then usually professed the principles of Bilson and Hooker and were conformists; so were the main body of the Westminster Assembly, Army, commanders, Lieutenants, majors and sea captains
11. Had hoped the King’s Act of Oblivion ended much of the past, but some conformed ministers still affirm in print that “All the non-conformists were guilty of the king’s death”. Some conformists cry out to magistrates to execute laws on non-conformists because of how they were sequestered under Cromwell, yet there were few non-conformists at the beginning of the wars and the now episcopal and presbyterian non-conformists much disliked the following Causes, parties and tragedies that followed
36. The people who now adhere to the non-conformists did not like the persecuting bishops in the late-1630’s, but, by ministers’ guiding, were hoping for more moderate bishops after that and had more favorable thoughts of episcopacy and submission to it, till some ministers were set over them against their wills and then 2,000 were silenced, so that the people were driven even further from conformity than even the silenced ministers.
37. 3/4ths of the ministers that had kept in the parish churches under the Parliament and Cromwell, notwithstanding the SL&C, Westminster’s Directory, etc., did prove conformists
38. Most of the conformists declared their consent to all things in the 1662 Service-Book before it was ever printed. Even if it was blameless, the ministers would have been silenced except by exercising implicit faith
Non-Conformity Continued, 1662-1679
39. Later attempts at conciliating non-conformists by peaceable divines were not effective, for “reasons unknown to us, or ineffable.”
40. Non-conformists have been called upon to tell the establishment what would satisfy them, who desire nothing but to exercise the ministry to which they were ordained, but the same ignorance and confusion prevails
.
The Act of Uniformity, 1662
.
Requirements for Conformity in 1662
For Laymen
Baxter, Richard
pp. 22-23 of ch. 4 of The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (London: Parkhurst, 1689)
This is the shorter treatment: a list of 12 things.
section 8, ‘What is Required of us by laws and canon, to which we must conform, and first of laymen’ in The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679), pp. 141-55
In this longer treatment, Baxter details out the many unScriptural and irrational requirements on laity in the Anglican Church after 1662, along with the many interpretations of what the requirments mean.
“The nonconformable laity are ejected from the communion of the Church, and their children (that are disposed of by them) from baptism, Christendom and Christian burial, if not from salvation, as far as in the Church lies; and those that affirm themselves to be nonconformists are by the Church laws excommunicated ipso facto, though they should desire communion.” – pp. 154-55
.
For Ministers
Baxter, Richard
pp. 17-22 of ch. 4 of The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (London: Parkhurst, 1689)
This is the shorter treatment: a list of 40 things.
section 9, ‘The Conformity & Non-Conformity of the Ministers, and of Assent, Consent and Subscription that Nothing is Contrary to God’s Word’ in The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679), pp. 155-207
In this longer treatment, the maze of the many unScriptural and irrational requirements for ministers were worse than for the laity. The consequence of not subscribing to them was to be ejected from the Church and publicly silenced. Baxter goes into the near-endless amount of differing interpretations of all these requirements (usually by conformists to justify their conformity).
.
Secondary Sources
Article
Quibell, Adam – ‘The Puritan & the Prelate: John Owen, Thomas Barlow and the conformist reception of dissenting literature in post-Restoration England’ Abstract in The Seventeenth Century (2026)
Abstract: “Dissenting print circulated within conformist scholarly culture with various uses and responses. Barlow’s annotations on Owen’s works about liturgy, indulgence, religious politics, and biblical exegesis show a conformist bishop disputing Congregationalist ecclesiology and claims for toleration, yet sharing Owen’s anti-catholicism, valuing his learning, and sometimes finding dissenting theology closer to the Reformed identity he wished preserved in the Church of England. Through Owen and Barlow’s relationship, the experiential boundary between conformity and dissent appears more permeable than polemic and statute alone might suggest.”
.
.
.
Related Pages