.
Subsections
Union & Separation about Impurities in Worship
Omitting Parts of Worship
Necessary Duties though Others Sin
Abstain from Sinful Impurities, though join in Service
Some Impurities may be Performed
Conditional Compliance with Erastianism
May Receive Ordination by a Bishop
Cooperation with Bishops
Taking Necessary Means to Attend Worship
Merciful & Necessary Works may take up Whole Lord’s Day
Public Worship under Persecution
Occasional Hearing
Ecclesiastical Conviction: Necessary to Withhold Supper
May Partake in a Lutheran Supper
Kneeling for Supper: Tolerable
Should a Silenced Minister Preach?
Reforming Church Ordinances
Caution & Restraints in Reforming
Accommodation in Reforming
When Impurities cannot be Reformed
Error, Certainty & Passive Obedience in Judicial Rulings
Patronage
.
.
Order of Contents
Scriptural Argument for
Articles 12+
Books 2
Quotes 12+
Historical 10+
Westminster 1
.
Scriptural Argument for Occasional & Principled Partial Conformity to Things not Wholly Right in the Church in Some Circumstances
For Occasional Conformity
Quote
James Owen
Moderation a Virtue, or, The Occasional Conformist Justified from the Imputation of Hypocrisy… (London: Baldwin, 1703), pp. 7-9
“John the Baptist was an occasional conformist to the Jewish Church: He went to Jerusalem to worship thrice a year at the solemn feasts, according to the Law; but at other times he held separate assemblies in the wilderness of Judea at Jordan, and at Enon, where he taught and baptized…
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Author of our holy religion, was also an occasional conformist. We find Him sometimes in the Temple and synagogues; at other times preaching in private houses, on mountains and in the wilderness, etc… He preached in separate congregations, was a dissenter from the imposed ceremonies and traditions of the elders, and vindicated his disciples in their non-conformity to them, telling his censorious accusers that they ‘taught for doctrine the commandments of men.’ (Mt. 15:1-9; Mk. 7:1-8)
The apostles of our Lord Jesus, in imitation of their Master, were occasional conformists. One while we find them in the Temple at public worship and teaching there. (Acts 3:1; 4:1) Another while in a private meeting, or conventicle, as some would call it. St. Luke says, ‘They continued daily with one accord in the Temple’, and ‘broke bread from house to house.’ (Acts 2:46)
St. Paul, the apostle of the gentiles, was eminent for occasional conformity. He exhorts the Christians to assert their freedom from the law of ceremonies (Gal. 5:1), lives himself after the manner of the gentiles (Gal. 2:14), and by consequence, in fellowship with them, yet occasionally purified himself in the Temple, according to the Law of Moses. (Acts 21:26) He was a dissenter from the ceremonies of the Law, and yet submits to them to avoid offense. He statedly communicated with the gentile Churches, but holds occasional communion with the national Jewish Church. He judged occasional communion lawful, but did not therefore conclude constant communion a duty, nay, it had been sinful to him and all other Christians; for then they must have separated from the fellowship of the Gospel, and renounced Christianity…
From this different constitutions of the Jewish [in Acts 15:21] and Gentile Churches, it follows, 1. That there was no exact uniformity in the Churches planted by the apostles. Nor did they make any laws of uniformity in lesser matters, as the condition of Christian communion; but left the believers to follow their different sentiments, and to approve themselves to God therein. Some were free to eat all things, others eat herbs, rather than forbidden flesh, or clean flesh dressed after the manner of the gentiles, some observed days, others not. (Rom. 14:2, 5) Here is a manifest difference in practice, and the rule or canon which the apostle gives about it, is not a rule of uniformity, but of charity, not to despise or judge one another. (Rom. 14:3)”
.
For Partial Conformity
Articles
Fentiman, Travis – “Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
“Argument for Principled Partial Conformity [in Worship]”, pp. 21-56
“Principled Partial Conformity in [Church] Government”, pp. 94-160
.
Articles
1500’s
Cartwright, Thomas – ‘A Letter of T. C. To Richard Harrison Concerning Separation’ 15 pp. (1584) in The Judgment of Mr. Cartwright & Mr. Baxter Concerning Separation & the Ceremonies (1673) Note that EEBO lists the author as Cartwright (1634-1689), which is untrue. This same work is in Cartwrightiana, pp. 48-58.
This article argues that the deformed Anglican Church was a true Church of Christ, and consequently that persons using separate, more pure assembies for worship in England, ought to yet hold communion with the Anglican Church, and persons who come from it, so far as able.
“Say therefore that it is a fault in them to hear such a minister thrust upon them, yet that it is an apostasy from God and an utter falling away from the Gospel, I ses not with what great appearance of truth it can be spoken. Moses, when diverse of the people clave unto Korah, Dathan and Abiram, forsaking willingly the lawful and ordinary ministry of the Aaronites, did not therefore cast them forth from the Lord’s host:” – p. 5
.
1600’s
Corbet, John – ‘Material Obedience for Good’ under ‘Principles of Union & Separation about Church Assemblies with Impurities of Worship in Them’ at ‘On Impurities in Worship’ (RBO)
Baxter, Richard – ‘Reformation & Conditional Conformity’ under ‘Principles of Union & Separation about Church Assemblies with Impurities of Worship in Them’ at ‘On Impurities in Worship’ (RBO)
.
1700’s
Howe, John
‘Some Consideration of a Preface to an Inquiry Concerning the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters, etc.’ in The Works of John Howe, vol. 5, Containing the Treatises: On Divine Prescience and the Trinity… (Religious Tract Society, 1863), pp. 261-90
Howe (1630-1705) was an English Puritan and presbyterian theologian. He served briefly as chaplain to Oliver Cromwell.
“But if one avoid more ordinary communion with a church, as judging it, though not essentially defective, yet to want [lack] or err in some circumstances so considerable as that he counts [that] another church comes nearer the common Christian rule, the Holy Scriptures, and finds its administrations more conducing to his spiritual advantage; he may be led, by the judgment of his conscience, both, sometimes upon weighty and important reasons to communicate with the former [defective Church], and continue therein, according as those reasons shall continue urgent upon him; and yet, sometimes, as the cessant or diminished weight of such reasons shall allow, to communicate with the other [more spiritually advantageous church].” – pp. 275-76
“Sometimes, surely it will be understood how bold an adventure it is, to make terms of Christian communion, which Christ has never made.” – p. 279
“In 1662, the same spirit and sentiment afresh appeared; when most of the considerable ejected London ministers met, and agreed to hold occasional communion with the now re-established Church—not quitting their own ministry, or declining the exercise of it as they could have opportunity. And as far as I could by inquiry learn, I can little doubt this to have been the judgment of their fellow sufferers through the nation, in great part, ever since…
any one of common sense can see through it; such as that: ‘How can a man dissent and conform at the same time?’ when all the world knows, or may, conformity consists of numerous parts; and is it such a miracle for a man to conform in some part and not in every part? Conscientiously to scruple constant entire conformity, and not scruple some part of it, at some time?” – p. 289
“But, Mr. Prefacer [Howe’s separatist opponent], if your judgment upon the case itself, be true, I conceive that truth, accompanied with your temper of spirit, is much worse than their error.” – p. 290
VII. ‘Letter to a Person of Honour, Partly Representing the Rise of Occasional Conformity, & Partly the Sense of the Present Non-Conformists, About their yet Continuing Differences from the Established Church’ (1702) in The Works of John Howe, vol. 3 (London: William Tegg, 1848), pp. 573-76
Anon. – A Dialogue between Conformity, Non-conformity & Occasional Conformity, concerning a late bill in Parliament (London: Nutt, 1703) 18 pp.
Owen, James – Moderation a Virtue, or, The Occasional Conformist Justified from the Imputation of Hypocrisy… (London: Baldwin, 1703) 46 pp. no ToC
Owen (1654-1706) was an English, Independent puritan.
By ‘occasional conformity’, Owen does not mean ever doing that which is sinful. Rather, he means occasionally joining in worship, where one can, which is lawful, though other parts of it, which one does not participate in, may be unlawful. ‘Occasional’ also refers to doing this only sometimes, whereas one regularly worships according to the full standard of God’s worship in separate assemblies. Such assemblies are separate by necessity, so as not to be corrupted, but have not thrown off the governmental authority of the valid, mother Church altogether.
This is distinct from ‘constant conformity’, which would not hold separate assemblies, and may conform in all things; and it is different from ‘no conformity’, which would not participate in lawful worship acts with the mother Church where it can, simply due to the corruptions in the government and worship of that valid Church.
“John the Baptist was an occasional conformist to the Jewish Church: He went to Jerusalem to worship thrice a year at the solemn feasts, according to the Law; but at other times he held separate assemblies in the wilderness of Judea at Jordan, and at Enon, where he taught and baptized…
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Author of our holy religion, was also an occasional conformist. We find Him sometimes in the Temple and synagogues; at other times preaching in private houses, on mountains and in the wilderness, etc… He preached in separate congregations, was a dissenter from the imposed ceremonies and traditions of the elders, and vindicated his disciples in their non-conformity to them, telling his censorious accusers that they ‘taught for doctrine the commandments of men.’ (Mt. 15:1-9; Mk. 7:1-8)
The apostles of our Lord Jesus, in imitation of their Master, were occasional conformists. One while we find them in the Temple at public worship and teaching there. (Acts 3:1; 4:1) Another while in a private meeting, or conventicle, as some would call it. St. Luke says, ‘They continued daily with one accord in the Temple’, and ‘broke bread from house to house.’ (Acts 2:46)
St. Paul, the apostle of the gentiles, was eminent for occasional conformity. He exhorts the Christians to assert their freedom from the law of ceremonies (Gal. 5:1), lives himself after the manner of the gentiles (Gal. 2:14), and by consequence, in fellowship with them, yet occasionally purified himself in the Temple, according to the Law of Moses. (Acts 21:26) He was a dissenter from the ceremonies of the Law, and yet submits to them to avoid offense. He statedly communicated with the gentile Churches, but holds occasional communion with the national Jewish Church. He judged occasional communion lawful, but did not therefore conclude constant communion a duty, nay, it had been sinful to him and all other Christians; for then they must have separated from the fellowship of the Gospel, and renounced Christianity…
From this different constitutions of the Jewish [in Acts 15:21] and Gentile Churches, it follows, 1. That there was no exact uniformity in the Churches planted by the apostles. Nor did they make any laws of uniformity in lesser matters, as the condition of Christian communion; but left the believers to follow their different sentiments, and to approve themselves to God therein. Some were free to eat all things, others eat herbs, rather than forbidden flesh, or clean flesh dressed after the manner of the gentiles, some observed days, others not. (Rom. 14:2, 5) Here is a manifest difference in practice, and the rule or canon which the apostle gives about it, is not a rule of uniformity, but of charity, not to despise or judge one another. (Rom. 14:3)” – pp. 7-9
Anon. – ‘The Preface’ in The History of Non-Conformity… to which is Prefixed a Preface relating to Occasional Conformity (London: Bragg, 1704)
Anon. – A Letter from a Dissenter in the City to his Country Friend: wherein Moderation & Occasional Conformity are Vindicated… (London: 1705) 14 pp.
Anon. – The Principles of an Occasional Conformist, Stated & Defended, with a Preface in Answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Reflections on Occasional Conformity… (London: Clark, 1718) 46 pp.
.
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis
‘An Extended Intro’ at ‘On the Ethics of Material Cooperation with, & Associations with Evil’ (RBO)
‘Intro’ at ‘On Impurities in Worship’ (RBO)
‘Theses on the Ethics of Civil Voting, with a Correction to the Booklet, Christ Centered Voting’ at ‘On Voting’ (RBO)
.
Books
1600’s
English Puritans – A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604) 300 pp. with an Extended Intro by Travis Fentiman
The moderate puritans are often looked upon as compromisers in partially conforming to things not wholly right in the Church (and State); yet their reasons for this are little known.
This newly edited book from the archives is a one of a kind jewel. Written by a group of unnamed English reformed ministers (in the trajectory of divine-right presbyterianism), they defend their outlook from the Scriptures while arguing against both the Conformists and Separatists, while preserving the Church as one (Jn. 17:20–23) in the fundamentals of the Faith, without sacrificing principles.
The Extended Introduction by Travis Fentiman (MDiv) sets forth the Scriptural case for principled partial conformity in worship and Church government, against the Scottish minister George Gillespie. It also documents that most of the Westminster divines were conformists to some degree under pain of ministerial deprivation, and shows how partial conformity is consistent with the Westminster standards. The surprising breadth of Westminster’s parameters on worship is historically brought to light in consideration of its original intent.
The fascinating untold story of the indulged covenanting ministers in Scotland during 1669-1688, those who partially conformed to the undue impositions of the civil government, is narrated and defended from Scripture, especially against the arguments of that ultra non-conformist, John Brown of Wamphray. The civil dethroning principles of the 1680’s Scottish Cameronians are shown to be erroneous and contrary to the reformed, puritan and covenanting tradition as especially summed up in Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex (1644).
An honest and not simplistic view the Solemn League and Covenant (1643) is surveyed, drawing on some of the latest historical research, supporting the partial conforming trajectory.
Lastly, the Extended Intro drives against denominationalism and the wrong-headedness of erecting denominational white towers, seeking the unifying of Christ’s Church through the catholic principles of Scripture, Westminster, the Scots and the London presbyterians. Church union in (at least) Christianity’s fundamentals will be seen to oblige from God’s Word, as many of the reformed, the London presbyterians and the Scottish covenanter James Durham taught. Separation for secondary matters that do not tend to overturn the fundamentals is seen to be schism (notwithstanding your denomination’s constitution, vows, covenants, etc.).
See the first several pages of the Extended Intro for what other things are treated of and argued in the book. Theological treasures are yours for the reaping; take up and read!
In 1650 many ministers in the episcopal Church of England were presbyterian in outlook and sought for reform unto this end. While some progress had been made following the Westminster Assembly, the work was still very incomplete. Oliver Cromwell, the self appointed ‘Protector’ of England, arose to civil power at this time; he was an Independent as far as Church government. Hence, Independent churches were arising all around, sometimes with presbyterian ministers.
The Church of England’s theology was Erastian. It did not have local church membership as we do, nor allowed for ruling elders in the churches, nor for the ecclesiastical ministry to have the right of excommunication from the Lord’s Supper. These conditions made it difficult, if at all possible, for ministers to have adequate oversight of their parish, and to adequately bar (beyond verbal warnings) scandalous, professing Christians from disgracing the Lord’s Supper.
In Independent churches without ruling elders, especially in large congregations, the conditions were similar. A minister, under regular order, does not have, nor should have, of himself, the power of jurisdiction to bar persons from the Lord’s Supper.
Hence, among conscientious presbyterian ministers in these situations, there was a very real question of whether they should administer the Lord’s Supper at all, especially in light of their obligation to maintain the integrity of the Supper and their attendent responsibility, in some respect, to keep persons from scandalously abusing it. Many ministers had determined in the negative, at least for the time, till further presbyterian reform could be made. Such systematic reform never occured thereafter.
Henry Jeanes (1611–1662) was an English presbyterian minister that had administered the Supper, with certain qualifications, in such conditions. A group of presbyterian ministers hence asked him to write out his reasons for this, in the hopes that he might be able to shed more light on the question for them. The article above is Jeanes’s answer. It is excellent. He gives the same answer as Thomas Cartwright, an earlier father of presbyterianism (as seen here).
Answering the question stated in the title of the article, of whether the Supper may be administered without ruling elders or a presbyterian church government, is quite simple: At the end of Acts 2, the apostles, who were ministers, administered the Supper to the large and growing Chuch in Jerusalem from house to house. Commentators, presbyterian included, nearly universally agree that they had no ruling elders, or sessions, or presbyteries. Why an affirmative answer to the question is right, though, is a much trickier thing to explicate.
And this is the primary value of the article: It clearly, carefully and in a balanced fashion, according to right, detailed, classic presbyterian principles shows how these things consist with each other in their right relations, this giving us an exponentially greater understanding of the Lord’s things.
See especially pp. 30-32 & 34 that the Lord’s Supper is more (1) properly and immediately worship, and (2) life-giving, and is therefore of greater import and necessity than having an eldership and exercising a negative discipline so as to exclude the scandalous beyond the verbal guarding of the Table by the minister.
A modern application of the question today is: Whether a minister, presuaded that weekly communion is too frequent for the adequate self-preparation of the people, in how it actually plays out, and for the elders to maintain adequate circumspection of the people’s right partaking of the Supper, and yet this church practice is not going to be reformed anytime soon, whether that minister may yet in good conscience administer the Supper in these conditions for the time? The principles discussed in the article would appear to be for the affirmative.
Crofton, Zachary – Reformation, Not Separation, or, Mr. Crofton’s Plea for Communion with the Church… in a Letter, written July 20, 1661… (1662) 74 pp. ToC
Crofton (1626-1672) was a presbyterian and puritan born and raised in Ireland.
Baxter, Richard – Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (1684; RBO, 2024) 87 pp.
John Owen had written a tract arguing for separation, at least for those who had “engaged unto reformation,” from ever attending the Anglican liturgy. In it Owen uses principles that may sound like the height of righteousness, but are separatist. Baxter (rightly) convicts him of 42 errors.
The Editor’s Introduction to the piece gives further clarity and background on the Occasional Conformity Controversy amongst the English nonconformists.
.
1700’s
Owen, James – Moderation Still a Virtue: in Answer to Several Bitter Pamphlets, especially two, Entitled, ‘Occasional Conformity a most Unjustifiable Practice’ [by S. Grascome] & ‘The Wolf Stripped of his Shepherd’s Clothing’ [by C. Leslie, against Dissenters]… Wherein the Precedents & Christian Principles of Conscientious, Occasional Conformity are Defended… (London, 1704) 102 pp. ToC
Owen’s two main opponents here are of the sentiments of the Established Anglican Church; they are against those who separate therefrom.
“Some of them [Owen’s opposers] violently oppose all moderation and confound it with lukewarmness in the essentials and vitals of religion…
the holy apostles, who were zealous in matters of faith, but moderate in the lesser differences, as those of days and meats [Rom. 14].” – Preface, p. ii
See pp. 7-15 that ‘occasional conformity’ was the practice of John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles.
.
Quotes
Order of
Cartwright
Du Moulin
Ames
Westminster Divines
Savoy Conference
Lytler
Honyman
Owen
Baxter
London Ministers
Monro
Hopkins
Rule
A Brakel
Henry
.
1500’s
Thomas Cartwright
Second Reply, pt. 2, ch. 8, pp. 262–63
“As touching that point whether the minister should wear it [the surplice, a white garment], although it be inconvenient: the truth is that I dare not be author to any to forsake his pastoral charge for the inconvenience thereof: considering that this charge, being an absolute commandment of the Lord, ought not to be laid aside for a simple inconvenience or uncomeliness of a thing which in the own nature is indifferent.
The offence in occasioning the weak to fall and the wicked to be confirmed in their wickedness is one of the foulest spots in the surplice, and which of all other can make it most detestable in the eyes of a godly minister…
But when it is laid in the scales with the preaching of the Word of God, which is so necessary for him that is called thereunto, that a woe hangs on his head if he do not preach it: it is of less importance than for the refusal of it we should let go so necessary a duty.”
.
1600’s
Pierre Du Moulin
‘Overture for Working toward the Union of the Christian Churches which have Shaken off the Yoke of the Papacy, and for Appeasing the Differences that have Already Arisen, or may Arise Hereafter’ (1615) in David Blondel, Authentic Accounts of the Reformed Churches of France, Germany & Great Britain, concerning the Peace & Brotherly Charity which all the Servants of God should Maintain among Protestants (Amsterdam: Blaeu, 1655), p. 74 trans. ChatGPT-5
“13. The points upon which the Lutheran Churches disagree with us are of two kinds. There are some upon which it is easier to reach agreement: such are the ceremonies of the Lutheran Churches, which may be excused and tolerated, because they concern decorum rather than necessity.
Of the same sort also are certain opinions respecting the point of Predestination, upon which, I judge, one might easily draw up an article of the common confession that all would approve without difficulty, provided that curiosity be avoided—which, I believe, has already been done by the Confession of Augsburg [1530], which speaks of it soberly and expressly declines that question.
There is also some difference concerning the necessity of baptism, which may rightly and reasonably be affirmed to be necessary to salvation — that is to say, that it is necessary for each person not to despise it — without pressing the question of necessity any further.”
.
William Ames
A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), ch. 1, section 17, p. 82
“As if occasional accommodation were all one with imposition, or voluntary joining in action for the good that is in it, were always a certain argument of holding that opinion which others doe affix unto it.”
.
On Westminster Divines
James Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue... (London, 1704), pp. 43-44
“There were many Church-ministers before the civil wars, whom the bishop of Spalato first called ‘Conformable Puritans’; these made up a great part of the [Westminster] Assembly of Divines: And those of them that lived to [the Great Ejection of] 1662, as many did, dissented from the New [Total] Conformity, and several of them had separate assemblies and yet occasionally heard the public ministers.
Dr. [Lazarus] Seaman, Dr. Cornelius Burgess, Mr. Anthony Burgess, Mr. [Thomas] Case, Dr. [Anthony] Tuckney, Dr. [Edward] Corbet, Mr. Samuel Hildersham, Mr. Edmund Calamy, etc. were of this number.”
.
Leading English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers
The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as Commissioners for the Review & Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer... (London, 1661), ‘The Papers’
pp. 92-93
“As to your first rule we answer: It is one thing to impose in general that all be done decently and in order. This God Himself has imposed by his apostle: and it’s another thing to impose in particular that this or that be used as decent and orderly. Concerning this we add, it is in the text said, ‘Let it be done,’ but not ‘let it be imposed,’ yet from other Scriptures we doubt not but circumstances of mere decency and order, as determined time, place, utensils, etc. which are common to things civil and sacred, though not the symbolical ceremonies (which afterwards we confute), may be imposed with the necessary cautions and limitations afterward laid down. But:
1. That if any usurpers will pretend a power from Christ to impose such things on the Church, though the things be lawful, we must take heed how we acknowledge an usurped power by formal obedience.
2. A just power may impose them but to just ends, as the preservation and success of the modified worship, or ordinances. And if they really conduce not to those ends, they sin in imposing them.
3. Yet the subjects are bound to obey a true authority in such impositions where the matter belongs to the cognizance and office of the ruler and where the mistake is not so great as to bring greater mischiefs to the Church than the suspending of our active obedience would do.
4. But if these things be determined under pretense of order and decency to the plain destruction of the ordinances modified and of the intended end, they cease to be means and we must not use them.
5. Or if under the names of things decent and of order men will meddle with things that belong not to their office, as to institute a new worship for God, new sacraments, or anything forbidden in the general prohibition of adding or diminishing, this is a usurpation and not an act of authority, and we are bound in obedience to God to disobey them.
6. Where governors may command at set times and by proportionable penalties enforce, if they command when it will destroy the end, or enforce by such penalties as destroy or cross it, they greatly sin by such commands.”
.
pp. 96-98
“1. When the indecency and disorder is so small as that it will not cross the ends, so much as our disobedience would, we [puritans] are here so far more conformable, and peaceable than you [bishops], as that we would even in God’s worship do some things indecent and disorderly rather than disobey; And so should you do rather than destroy your brethren, or hinder that peace and healing of the Church.
For order is for the thing ordered, and not contrarily. For example, there is much disorder lies in the Common-Prayer-Book, yet we would obey in it as far as the ends of our calling do require. It would be undecent to come without a [preacher’s] band, or other handsome raiment into the assembly: yet rather than not worship God at all, we would obey if that were commanded us; we are as confident that surplices and copes are undecent, and kneeling at the Lord’s Table is disorderly, as you are of the contrary: And yet if the magistrate would be advised by us (supposing himself addicted against you), we would advise him to be more charitable to you than you here advise him to be to us. We would have him, if your conscience require it, to forbear you in this undecent and disorderly way. But to speak more distinctly:
1. There are some things decent and orderly when the opposite species is not undecent or disorderly.
2. There are some things undecent and disorderly in a small and tolerable degree, and some things in a degree intolerable:
1. When things decent are commanded, whose opposites would not be at all undecent, there charity and peace, and edification may command a relaxation; or rather should at first restrain from too severe impositions, as it is decent to wear either a cloak or a gown, a cassock buttoned or unbuttoned, with a girdle or without, to sit, stand or kneel in singing of a psalm, to sit or stand in hearing the Word read or preached etc.
2. When a circumstance is undecent or disorderly, but in a tolerable degree to an inconvenience, obedience or charity or edification may command us to do it and make it not only lawful, but a duty pro hic, et nunc while the preponderating accident prevails.
Christ’s instances go at least as far as this, about the priests in the Temple breaking the Sabbath blamelessly and David’s eating the showbread, which was lawful for none to eat ordinarily but the priests: And the disciples rubbing the ears of corn: ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ [Mt. 12] is a lesson that He sets us to learn, when two duties come together, to prefer the greater, if we would escape sin; And sure to keep an able preacher in the Church, or a private Christian in communion, is a greater duty caeteris paribus [all things being equal] than to use a ceremony which we conceive to be decent;
It is more orderly to use the better translation of the Scripture than the worse as the Common-Prayer-book does; and yet we would have no man cast out, for using the worse: It is more orderly decent, and edifying for the minister to read all the psalms than for the people to read each second verse; And yet we would not cast out men from the Church or ministry merely for that disorder. It is more orderly and decent [for men] to be uncovered in divine worship than covered: And yet rather than a man should take cold, we could allow him to hear a chapter or sermon covered: why (not much more) rather than he should be cast out [of the Church].”
.
Richard Lytler
The Reformed Presbyterian, humbly offering to the consideration of all pious and peaceable spirits several arguments for obedience to the Act for Uniformity… (London: 1662), ch. 11, p. 109
“That which is a Christian duty may lawfully be done without superstition or will-worship, and may be subscribed as agreeable to God’s Word.”
.
Andrew Honyman
The Seasonable Case of Submission to the Church-Government as now Re-established by Law, briefly stated and determined by a Lover of the Peace of this Church & Kingdom (Edinburgh: Tyler, 1662), p. 9
“Is this rational, that where two commands of the magistrate are joined, the one undoubtedly lawful to be obeyed, the other doubted of, that subjects should disobey the magistrate in that which is clearly lawful, because they have a doubt or unclearness anent obeying him in the other command?
Does it not become subjects to go as far on in obedience to lawful authority as they see they may without sin against God? Then it is time to stop when anything is put to them by virtue of the king’s command which they clearly see they cannot do without sin.”
.
John Owen
An Enquiry into the Original, Nature, Institution, Power, Order & Communion of Evangelical Churches (London, 1681), polemic, section, pp. 252-53
“That which I first meet withal directly unto this purpose is, part 2, p. 157, the forbearance of communion with the Church of England in its parochial assemblies (that is in the way and manner before described) he opposes with two arguments. The first respects those who allow occasional communion with parochial churches but will not comply with them in that which is constant and absolute.
For he says, if the first be lawful, the latter is necessary from the commands we have to preserve the peace and unity of the Church. And the not doing it, he says, is one of the provoking sins of the non-conformists; but whether it be a sin or no is sub Judice [under judgment]; that it is provoking unto some is sufficiently evident. I shall not make this any part of my contest…
And it will be hard to prove that on a concession of the lawfulness of communion in some acts of divine worship, it will be necessary for men to oblige themselves unto total constant communion, with a renunciation and condemnation of all other ways and means of joint edification. It may also be lawful to do a thing with some respects and limitations, at some times, which it, may not be lawful to do absolutely and always. It may be necessary from outward circumstances to do that sometimes which is lawful in itself, though not necessary from itself; it can never be necessary to do that which is unlawful. Of the first sort they esteem occasional communion, and the other of the latter.
Some time is spent [by the opponent] in taking off an exception unto this inference from the practise of our Saviour, who had occasional communion with the Jews in the Temple and ynagogues, which he proves to have been constant and perpetual, and not occasional only, and that He prescribed the same practise unto his disciples. But I think this labour might have been spared. For there is nothing more clear and certain than that our Lord Jesus Christ did join with the Jews in the observance of God’s institutions among them, on the one hand; and on the other, that he never joined with them in the observance of their own traditions and Pharasaical impositions, but warned all his disciples to avoid them and refuse them [Mt. 15], whose example we desire to follow; for concerning all such observances in the Church, he pronounced that sentence, ‘Every plant that my Heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up.'”
.
Richard Baxter
Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653), ‘Objections Answered’
“1. Some brethren of the Classical [presbytrian] way may possibly object [to joining an accommodated church-association such as Baxter’s], that joining with us in this way may seem to signify a dislike of the resolutions of the [Westminster?] Assembly, or a consent to the undoing of what they have done.
Answer: There is no ground for this scruple: For we do not disclaim or condemn the judgment or way of any party, by taking up at present with what all are agreed in. A present forbearance of the use of full Classical government is no rejecting it. We did in this county seek for authority from the parliament many years ago for the establishing of the presbyterian government, and all our endeavors were frustrated. And many brethren that make this objection do preach themselves without the exercise of the presbyterian government. For because they live not in London, Lancashire, Shropshire, where that government was authorized by parliament, therefore they will not use it: And so some of them for many years have forborne all administration of the Lord’s Supper, and others administer it without any exercise of discipline: And may not we as lawfully exercise so much as all are agreed in, as they may forbear all?
Objection: But why may not you as well set up the Classical government punctually, as do what you do?
Answer: We are not all of one mind; and those of us that are for the Classical government do not think those parts of it which we here omit and forbear to be of so great necessity or moment as for the present use of it to disjoin and divide from all our brethren of a different judgment. We take ourselves bound to do much for the unity and peace of the churches: Besides, being many of us at a loss in several controverted points of discipline, we think the amicable union and association of brethren where all things may be frequently and plainly debated will be the likeliest way to satisfy and rectify us in those controverted points. In the meantime, you may join with us in going so far as we can go unanimously, without disclaiming, yea or forbearing your own way. For I think the constant exercise of the presbyterian government may well consist with our Propositions and associations: part of it being indeed above, but not contrary to our Agreement, and therefore may be done by those that will overgo us, without dividing from us.
…
And whereas it may be objected that we do allow a single minister to name offenders and to charge it on the people’s consciences to avoid communion with them, which only a presbytery is authorized to do, I answer:
1. We desire each church may have a presbytery, and then we are agreed.
2. The brethren of the Classical Way do allow a single pastor to pronounce the sentence of excommunication itself, so be it he have the advice and consent of a presbytery. And to avoid all possibility of breach upon this ground, we have agreed to take the advice of the Association of ministers before we require the people to avoid communion with any. Only we resolve not to do this all on the same reasons and principles:
One may think it of flat necessity in a regimental way: Another may think it of necessity in a way of union: Another may think it convenient to avoid miscarriages and rash censures in so weighty a case: Another may think it fit to be yielded to for peace with those brethren that judge it necessary, seeing it is unquestionably lawful to take advice in cases of such weight. And why must we needs agree in our reasons as long as we agree in our practice?
3. It is only a preaching power that we exercise, applying Christ’s doctrine to particular persons and cases: supposing the evidence of the fact and guilt to be beyond question, we do but apply the word to the person hereupon… Have not pastors a charge of particular souls, but only of people in general? Is not the Old Testament and New full of examples to warrant us in this? Take heed of crying down duty, under pretense of questioning authority.
…
I will say no more to any objections that may possibly be made by my brethren of the Classical Way, because I find by experience it is needless (if others be as those with us), for they are the forwardest men to our union and Association of any others (here). The Lord grant the like spirit of unity and condescension in other parts.
…
Brethren! Would you have unity and peace or no? If you would, must not you condescend as far as may be to others, as well as others to you? Let it be the property of the Pope to accept of no peace with any Church that will not wholly come up to his will and way. And you know that this is the great point which you must yield in or you cannot have union with the contrary minded…
Is it not fit that bounds for order and division should be set?… And is it not done in most places as well as you can desire? And where it is not… get them amended as soon as you can. In the mean time, affect not confusion: turn not all order upside down: God is not the God of confusion, but of order, which He would have established in all the Churches.
5. In the mean time, I pray you observe, that you may join with us in this without contradicting or deserting your own principles…
The public welfare and unity of the churches is to be preferred before the pleasing, yea or edifying of any single member. What confusion will follow the plucking up of Christ’s and the magistrate’s and the churches’ bounds?”
.
The Christian Religion expressed: I, briefly in the Ancient Creeds, the Ten Commandments & the Lord’s Prayer, and, II, more largely in a Profession taken out of the Holy Scriptures, containing 1, the articles of the Christian Belief, 2, our consent to the Gospel Covenant, 3, the Sum of Christian Duty according to the primitive simplicity, purity, and practice, fitted to the right instruction of the ignorant, the promoting of holiness, and the charitable concord of all true believers… (London: 1660), The Agreement of the Associated Pastors
“VIII. Though it be the surest way to peace and concord to take up with these necessary things, and we cannot approve of the narrow dividing principles of those men that will impose things unnecessary, to the excluding of the necessary, yet if our lawful rulers shall command it, or the peace of the Church through the distempers of the brethren shall require it, we shall obey, and consent in things that God has not forbidden; and if we suffer for well-doing, and for obeying God rather than men, we shall endeavor to imitate our Lord, who being reviled, reviled not again, and when he suffered, threatened not; but committed all to Him that judges righteously, 1 Pet. 2:23.”
.
Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (1684; RBO, 2024), pp. 59-60
“…judge now whether all the ill effects have come from one extreme [side of the parties, and not the other]. The truth is, having impartially observed the mischiefs of the age in which I have lived, I have found that both the extremes have been the chief causes and the peacemakers both the most understanding and the most innocent; and the nearer any of the several parties have come to them, the more innocent they have been.
It is not mere episcopacy or liturgies that have done the mischief, for such excellent men as Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Farrar, Parker, Jewel, Grindal, Davenant, Ussher, etc. could use both profitably. It’s not mere presbytery, for such as Calvin, Beza, Daneau, Sadeel, Rivet, Chamier, Daille, Blondel have been excellent lights in the Church. It is not mere Independency, for Ramus, Ames, Henry Jacob, Jeremiah Burroughs and many others of that mind have been excellent, peaceable men. It is not mere Anabaptistry [baptists], for there have been many peaceable worthy men against infant baptism (and some bishops thought it not of divine institution); and when they were rebaptized, continued in love and communion with others.
But it is proud ignorance and lack of Christian love causing excommunicating, persecuting, Separation or schism in some, and withdrawing censorious Separation in others, who (neither party) understand the truth nor ever loved their neighbors as themselves, nor learned to do as they would be done by. The worldly PR. IGs.¹ and the unruly PR. IGs. by persecution and by causeless Separation and alienation have done the hurt.
¹ [This may likely mean “Proud Ignorants”, as a contemporary critic of Baxter, who was unsure, so inferred… This is confirmed by Baxter’s anti-party spirit and morally adjudged perspective in the immediate context. Another option is “Presbyterians and Independents” as “G” may stand for “Gatherers”, as Independents were sometimes called; yet much of the persecution was done by bishops, prelates and Formalists, as Baxter notes, so this alternative seems less likely. Baxter though may have meant both, or left his meaning ambiguous so as not to be able to be blamed for it by the named parties (note that he was reckoned an Independent by some, though he called himself a presbyterian at times). It is not to be missed that the abbreviations spell “prigs”, which word was current in that era with its current meaning.]”
.
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (London, 1689), ch. 2, pp. 11-16
“XXI… Rulers have authority to command that which is good, though not in a faulty manner; and when we cannot do the good without the faulty manner, it is their fault and not ours: e.g. If an inconvenient time, place, text, tune, etc. be chosen, the union and concord which is held by agreeing in those modes is necessary: He that will not join in them cannot join in the worship. So that we obey the ruler or guide as a determiner of the means of concord, which is necessary, and not sub ratione erroris [under the rule of the error], [we do not obey and perform the action formally] as misdetermining, though [we do the action] in that which is [materially] misdetermined…º And it’s to us a lawful circumstance, because [it is] necessary to concord and [is] commanded, though mistakingly.
XXII. We [nonconformists] never held it unlawful to join with a Church or minister that has some faults, both personal and in their acts of worship, as if all that joined were guilty of all the faults there committed: No not though we knew before hand that some false doctrine would be uttered or fault committed: Else we must separate from all the world, and all [people must separate] from us.
…
XXIV. We never judged needless affected singularity a duty, but judge it best in lawful things for concord’s sake to conform to the custom of the Churches where we live or come.”
.
London Ministers
A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, ‘The Non-Conformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, pp. 12-16
“What opinion the sober and eminent non-conformists have of communion with the Church of England…
amongst the present non-conformists, several have writ for communion with the Church against those that separate from it, and have in print declared it to be their duty and practice. So Mr. [Richard] Baxter (Sacril. desert., p. 75), ‘I constantly join in my parish-church in liturgy and sacrament.’ It’s said of Mr. Joseph Alleine that ‘he as frequently attended on the public worship as his opportunities and strength permitted.’ (The Life of Mr. J. Alleine, p. 111) Of Mr. Brinsley, that he ordinarily attended on the public worship (The Doctrine of Schism, p. 64). Dr. [John] Collinges says as much of himself (Reasonable Account, etc.). Mr. [Thomas] Lye in his Farewell Sermon does advise his people to attend the public worship of God, to hear the best they could and not to separate, but to do as the old puritans did thirty years before.
Mr. [Samuel] Craddock in his Farewell Sermon professes that ‘if that pulpit was his dying bed, he would earnestly persuade them to have a care of total Separation from the public worship of God. Mr. [Henry] Hickman freely declares (Bonasus vapulans, p. 113), ‘I profess wherever I come, I make it my business to reconcile people to the public assemblies; my conscience would fly in my face if I should do otherwise.’ And Mr. [John] Corbet, as he did hold communion with the Church of England, so says that ‘the presbyterians generally frequent the worship of God in the public assemblies.’ (Discourse of the Religion, etc. p. 33; Mr. Read’s Case, p. 15)
It’s evident then that it is their principle, and we may charitably believe it is their practice in conformity to it. Thus Mr. Corbet declares for himself:
‘I own parish-churches, having a competent minister, and a number of credible professors of Christianity, for true Churches, and the worship therein performed, as well in Common-Prayer as in the preaching of the Word, to be in the main sound, and good for the substance or matter thereof: And I may not disown the same in my practice by a total neglect thereof, for my judgment and practice ought to be concordant.’
…Those good men therefore were aware of this who met a little after the Plague and Fire, to consider (says Mr. Baxter) ‘whether our actual forbearance to join with the parish-churches in the sacrament might not tend to deceive men, and make them believe that we were for Separation from them, and took their communion to be unlawful: And upon the reasons given in, they agreed such communion to be lawful and meet, when it would not do more harm than good;’ that is, they agreed that it was lawful in itself.”
.
Alexander Monro
Presbyterian Inquisition, as it was lately Practiced against the Professors of the College of Edinburgh, August & September, 1690… (London: Hindmarsh, 1691), pp. 16-17 Monro was an episcopalian.
“…how inexcusable is it in the presbyterians to prosecute them [ministers in the Church of Scotland] so violently when they have nothing to object against them but that they complied with episcopacy [from 1661-1688], since the first covenanters [in the late-1500’s and early-1600’s] were as liable to this accusation as any of the present clergy [in 1690].
…
The author is much mistaken if he thinks that the plurality of the Scots clergy [in 1690] are presbyterians, though they are content to join with presbyterians in Church judicatories in all those duties that are uncontroverted.”
.
Ezekiel Hopkins
An Exposition on the Ten Commandments… (London: Ranew, 1691), Second Commandment, p. 133
“For my part I freely profess that were my lot cast among any of the Reformed Churches beyond the seas, I would presently join in their communion and not at all scruple to conform myself to their received customs, although perhaps in my own private persuasion I may judge some of them to be less serious and less reverent than those of the Church of England, which are now so passionately decried and condemned. I have ever venerated that oracular advice of St. Ambrose to St. Augustine:
‘If thou wilt neither give offence, nor take offence, conform thyself to all the lawful customs of the Churches where thou comest.’ (Augustine ad Jan., epistle 118)
.
Gilbert Rule
The Good Old Way Defended… (Edinburgh: 1697), sect. 10 Rule was a Scottish, divine-right presbyterian.
pp. 251-52
“§6. There is another sort of unity much regarded among the ancients, which though the breach of it had as bad influence on all or most Churches, and so on the catholic Church, yet it properly respected neighbour Churches, either, which were united by the bond of one government, a provincial, or lesser synod, being made up of them: or only living in the vicinity of one another, or having frequent occa∣sion of correspondence; they who were not under any uniting bonds, but these commune to all the parts of the catholic Church, yet had an unity of kind correspondence, mutual assistance, as occasion offered; acquainting one another with their affairs, so far as it was of any advantage: admitting the members of other Churches to communion with them, on occasion, refusing communion with such members of other Churches as were by them excommunicated.
And this unity was then broken when these acts of friendship were shunned or refused, especially when they who were cast out by one were received to another: or when occasional communion was either shunned by them who so joined in another Church, or denied to such sojourners if they desired it: or, when one Church showed rage, fury and bitterness against another because of what they differed about [though it was non-fundamental].”
.
pp. 258-59
“It is false also that all the Churches abroad have human ceremonies so twisted with their solemn worship that presbyterians cannot join with them. We have often (and do when occasion serves) very cordially and to our edification joined with them, and yet partake in none of these: nor is [there] so much of these [human ceremonies] among them as he would make us believe.”
.
On Wilhelmus A Brakel
Maurice Grant, Preacher to the Remnant: The Story of James Renwick (Blue Banner Productions, 2009), pp. 139-41
“[Wilhelmus A’]Brakel had accepted to a church in Rotterdam, instigated largely at the behest of the civil authorities. [Robert] Hamilton [a Cameronian] judged that, in accepting the call, Brakel had compromised the principle of spiritual independence [of the Church], and, true to character, he had not hesitated to tell Brakel so in forthright terms. Brakel was highly offended, and made his displeasure very plain…
‘…Mr. Hamilton gave me out in Scotland as being one that inclined to Erastianism and as one that had perfidiously relinquished my charge… but truly they are only fancies, and lies… I should make known to you his cheats and lying reports… He stirs up a shism amongst you for his own advantage… By his improvidence he has done much damage to the Church of Scotland… now he nourishes divisions amongst you under pretext of piety; do not you follow him…’
But the most part of the account was given over to Brakel’s view of [James] Renwick and the Societies.
‘If I were with Mr. Renwick, I would put him to call to mind the saying which at his parting I said to him, while he was requiring of me some memorable token, ‘Be not righteous over much, neither make thyself over wise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself?’ Now you understand not this; but remember that this I said to you, that sometime it shall be useful. Now it is time to live according to that word. Oh what need has he now of that admonition!…”
…Brakel had particularly harsh words for the Protestation [approved by the Societies] against the Scottish Church in Rotterdam, which he insisted had been compiled by Hamilton:
‘I warn you to forbear any such like toys. Place not piety in such things. It is enough that you have raised a schism by such cavils and brought a stain upon piety and that you have given occasion to the ungodly to reproach the name of God. Return unto the way, you that love godliness, be of one mind with all that fear the Lord, and if there be any that are obstinate, let them be gone.’”
.
Matthew Henry
On Schism (need to get)
Not altar against altar, but altar next to altar.
.
Historical
.
Order of Contents
England
. Baxter
Scotland
.
Post-Reformation England
1500’s to early 1600’s
Articles
Lake, Peter
‘The Moderate Position’ in ch. 2, ‘Presbyterian Tactics’ in Anglicans & Puritans? Presbyterianism & English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker Pre (Routledge, 2020)
ch. 7, ‘Moving the Goal Posts? Modified Subscription & the Construction of Conformity in the Early Stuart Church’ in eds. Peter Lake & Michael Questier, Conformity & Orthodoxy in the English Church, c. 1560-1660 Pre (Boydell Press, 2000), section 2, pp. 179-211
Marshall, Peter & John Morgan – ‘Clerical Conformity & the Elizabethan Settlement Revisited’ in The Historical Journal, vol. 59, no. 1 (March 2016), pp. 1-22
Abstract: “the article… reflects on the complex meanings of ‘conformity’ in a period of perplexing change and dramatic institutional disruption, disputing any suggestion that apparent acquiescence signalled pervasive ‘acceptance’ of the alteration in religion among the clergy. In the process, it draws attention to the pitfalls of uncritical deployment of numbers and statistics, and of using them as explanatory short-cuts in understanding the dynamics of Reformation change.”
.
Books
Lake, Peter
Laurence Chaderton & the Cambridge Moderate Puritan Tradition, PhD thesis (Cambridge University, 1978) unpublished
Moderate Puritans & the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982) 293 pp. ToC
Fincham, K.C. – Pastoral Roles of the Jacobean Episcopate in Canterbury Province PhD diss. (University of London, 1985)
Abstract: “This thesis investigates the theory and practice of episcopal government in the English Church between 1603 and 1625… The divisive issue of ceremonial nonconformity, which could so easily sour relations between the bishop and his flock was largely stilled by James I’s accommodating attitude to ‘moderate’ nonconformists and the consequent de facto toleration of occasional conformity. The King also supported the proselytising mission of the Church, and he restrained the hostility of Arminian prelates both to [puritan] excessive preaching and to ceremonial nonconformity.”
McGinnis, Timothy – George Gifford & the Reformation of the Common Sort: Puritan Priorities in Elizabethean Religious Life Pre (Truman State Univ. Press, 2004)
.
Mid-1600’s to 1688
Articles
Chang-Ha Lim, Paul – ch. 5, ‘The Pursuit of Purity in Unity: The Worchestershire Association & the Rhetoric of Partial Conformity’ ToC in In Pursuit of Purity, Unity & Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-Century Context Pre (Brill, 2004), pp. 117-56
Ramsbottom, John
‘Presbyterians & ‘Partial Conformity’ in the Restoration Church of England’ Abstract in Journal of Ecclesiastical History (2009), vol. 43, issue 2 (April, 1992), pp. 249-70
”Conformists’ & ‘Church Trimmers’: The Liturgical Legacy of Restoration Anglicanism’ in Anglican & Episcopal History, vol. 64, no. 1 (March 1995), pp. 17-36
Vernon, Elliot – ch. 5, ‘Zachary Crofton, the Restoration Church of England, & the Dilemmas of Partial Conformity, 1662-65’ in eds. Jake Griesel & Esther Counsell, Reformed Identity & Conformity in England, 1559–1714 Pre (Manchester Univ. Press, 2024)
Hill, Christopher – ‘Occasional Conformity’ in Restoration Conformity & Dissent: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Nuttall ed. R. Buick Knox (London: Epworth Press, 1977), pp. 199-220
.
Books
Aklundh, Jens – The Church Courts in Restoration England, 1660–c. 1689 PhD diss. (University of Cambridge, 2019)
Abstract: “After a two-decade hiatus, the English church courts were revived by an act of Parliament on 27 July 1661, to resume their traditional task of correcting spiritual and moral misdemeanours. Soon thereafter, parishioners across England’s dioceses once more faced admonition, fines, excommunication, and even imprisonment if they failed to conform to the laws of the restored Church of England… most have concluded that, at least compared to their antebellum predecessors, the restored church courts constituted little more than a paper tiger, whose censures did little to halt the spread of dissent, partial conformity and immoral behaviour. This thesis will, in part, question such conclusions…
Studying those in charge of the courts, the first half of this thesis will explore the considerable friction between the Church’s ministry and the salaried bureaucrats and lawyers permanently staffing the courts. This, it argues, has important ramifications for our understanding of early modern office-holding, but it also sheds new light on the theological disposition of the Restoration Church. Using the same sources, coupled with substantial consultation of contemporary polemic, letters and diaries, the fourth and fifth chapters will argue that the sanctions of the restored church courts were often far from the ‘empty threat’ historians have tended to assume.”
Harris, Maureen E. – ‘Schismatical People’: Conflict between Clergy and Laity in Warwickshire, 1660-1720 PhD diss. (University of Leicester, 2015)
Abstract: “The clergy were the focus of early modern parish life, yet their often troubled relationships with parishioners have received little attention from social historians. This thesis offers new evidence by examining the Warwickshire clergy, in the turbulent years between 1660 and the repeal of the ‘Occasional Conformity’ and ‘Schism’ acts, as both victims and perpetrators in clerical/lay conflicts.”
.
Late-1600’s to Early-1700’s
Articles
Flaningham, John – ‘The Occasional Conformity Controversy: Ideology & Party Politics, 1697-1711’ Journal of British Studies 17 (1977), pp. 38-62
Knights, Mark – ‘Occasional Conformity & the Representation of Dissent: Hypocrisy, Sincerity, Moderation & Zeal’ in Parliament & Dissent, eds. Stephen Taylor & David Wilkes (Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2005), pp. 41-57
Sirota, Brent S. – ‘The Occasional Conformity Controversy, Moderation & the Anglican Critique of Modernity, 1700-1714’ in The Historical Journal, vol. 57, no. 1 (March 2014), pp. 81-105
.
Books
Matossian, Jason – James Owen & the Defense of Moderate Nonconformity Pre (V&R, 2002) 166 pp. ToC
James Owen’s works, above on this page, are in general very recommended.
Harris, Maureen E. – ‘Schismatical People’: Conflict between Clergy and Laity in Warwickshire, 1660-1720 PhD diss. (University of Leicester, 2015)
Abstract: “The clergy were the focus of early modern parish life, yet their often troubled relationships with parishioners have received little attention from social historians. This thesis offers new evidence by examining the Warwickshire clergy, in the turbulent years between 1660 and the repeal of the ‘Occasional Conformity’ and ‘Schism’ acts, as both victims and perpetrators in clerical/lay conflicts.”
Greaves, Richard L. – Enemies Under His Feet: Radicals & Nonconformists in Britain, 1664 – 1677 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990)
.
.
Baxter’s Autobiography
Quote
Richard Baxter
Catholic Theology, Plain, Pure, Peaceable... (London: White, 1675), Preface
“I. I was born and bred of parents piously affected, but of no such knowledge or acquaintance as might engage them in any controversies, or disaffect them to the present government of the Church, or cause them to scruple conformity to its doctrine, worship or discipline: In this way I was bred myself, but taught by my parents and God Himself to make conscience of sin and to fear God, and to discern between the godly and the notoriously wicked: For which my parents and I were commonly derided as puritans, the spirit of the vulgar being commonly then fired with hatred and scorn of serious godliness, and using that name as their instrument of reproach, which was first forged against the nonconformists only; And the clergy where I lived, being mostly only readers of the liturgy, and some others that rather countenanced than reproved this course, I soon confined my reverence to a very few among them that were learned and godly (but conformists), and for going out of my parish to hear them, my reproach increased: About eighteen or nineteen years of age I fell acquainted with some persons, half conformists and half nonconformists, who for fear of severities against private meetings, met with great secresy only to repeat the public sermons, and pray, and by pious conference edify each other. Their spirits and practice was so savoury to me, that it kindled in me a distaste of the prelates as persecutors, who troubled and ruined such persons, while ignorant drunkards and worldlings were tolerated in so many churches, yea, and countenanced for crying down such persons, and crying up bishops, liturgie and conformity:
Before I was aware, my affections began to solicit my understanding to judge of the things and causes by the persons (where the difference was very great). But yet my first teachers kept my judgement for conformity as lawful, though not desirable had we liberty, till I was ordained.
But soon after a new acquaintance provoked me to a deeper study of the whole controversy than I had undertaken before; which left me persuaded that the use of liturgy and ceremonies was lawful in that case of necessity, except the baptismal use of the cross, and the subscription to all things, etc.
But in 1640, the oath called ‘Et Caetera’ being offered the ministry, forced me to a yet more searching study of the case of our diocesan prelacie (which else I had never been like to have gainsaid). At a meeting of ministers to debate the case, it fell to Mr. Christopher Cartwright’s lot and mine to be the disputers; and the issue of all (that and my studies) was that I settled in the approbation of the episcopacy asserted by Ignatius, yea, and Cyprian, but such a dissent from the English frame, as I have given account of in my Disputations of Church Government.
My genius was inquisitive, and earnestly desirous to know the truth: my helps for piety were greater than my helps for learning, of which I had not much besides books: sickness helped my seriousness, keeping me still in expectation of death.
All my reverenced acquaintances (save one) cried down Arminianism as the Pelagian heresy, and the enemy of grace: I quickly plunged myself into the study of Dr. [William] Twisse and [William] Amesius, and [John] Camero, and [William] Pemble, and others on that subject: By which my mind was settled in prejudice against Arminianism, without a clear understanding of the case: whereupon I felt presently in my mind a judgment of those that were for Arminianism, as bad or dangerous adversaries to the Church; and specially of the then ruling bishops: which yet I think I had not-entertained, had I not taken them withal for the great persecutors of godly able ministers, and serious Christians, not only for ceremonies, but for holy practices of life.
Being under these apprehensions, when the wars began [early-1640’s], though the cause itself lay in civil controversies between king and parliament, yet the thoughts that the Church and godliness itself was deeply in danger by persecution and Arminianism did much more to bias me to the parliament’s side than the civil interest (which at the heart I little regarded)…”
.
.
Post-Reformation Scotland
Whole Period
Book
Donaldson, Gordon – Scotland: James V to James VII Buy (1965) 449 pp.
Donaldson (1913–1993) was a 20th-century Scottish historian. This was one of the first, major, treatments of Scottish history according to modern standards.
“It is, as Professor Donaldson demonstrates, absurd to divide all Scots (except the few Catholics) in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century into two hostile and mutually exclusive camps, presbyterian and episcopalian. Instead, he presents a much more convincing picture of relatively few committed men at the two extremes, with in between them a complex and fluctuating spectrum of opinions, of men in varying degrees ready to accept compromise in many matters for the sake of order and stability, representing varying “tendencies” (to borrow a term from modern commentators on political parties) within a single institution.
The emergence of two separate protestant churches, presbyterian and episcopalian, is a gradual development of the later seventeenth century. Obviously its roots can be traced to earlier controversies and growing polarisations of opinions; but the attempts of many earlier writers to erect two churches which alternate in and out of power from 1560 to the final triumph of presbyterianism in 1690 is now clearly discredited. The long and dreary tradition of sectarian church history, presbyterian versus episcopalian, still alas survives in some publications, but in this “post-Donaldson” era it need no longer be taken seriously by historians…
Most of the work published in recent years supports Donaldson’s interpretation of the period up to 1625 (and in some respects into the 1630s) as one of genuine compromise…” – David Stevenson, “Scottish Church History, 1600-1660, a Select Critical Bibliography” (1982), p. 210
.
Reformation to Early-1600’s
Books
Calderwood, David – The History of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1849)
Calderwood was a staunch Presbyterian. This treats in detail the period from 1514-1625.
This set is placed here as Calderwood fills his volumes with primary source documents (which scholars are still dependent on). While histories from the episcopalian and presbyterian sides abound, the documents of the Church of Scotland herself are usually in the middle.
“…is an official production, but a Presbyterian one, assisted by grants from the Covenanting General Assembly [of 1648]. Less a historian than editor of an enormous collection of constitutional documents and first hand accounts from a cloud of witnesses…” – David Reid, History of Scottish Literature, p. 189
McMillan, William – The Worship of the Scottish Reformed Church, 1550-1638 Buy (1931)
This book is placed here as it exposits the diversity of worship that took place in much of the Church of Scotland during this era (in contrast to the impression one may get that it all lined up with Knox’s view since the Reformation or Gillespie and Rutherford’s later view and writings), and the partial conformity exercised thereto.
Mullan, David G. – Scottish Puritanism: 1560-1638 Pre (Oxford, 2000)
“Mullan’s purpose is to ‘demonstrate an essential community of theology and piety amongst presbyterians and episcopalians, those who became covenanters and anti-covenanters’ (p. 1). This he has done, and very effectively.” – Maurice Lee, Jr.
.
Quote
On Divine Right Presbyterian, Covenanter Ministers
James Kirk, Development of the Melvillian Movement in Late Sixteenth Century Scotland PhD (Univ. of Edin., 1972), vol. 2, pp. 463-68
“Even in its approval of episcopacy, the legislation of 1584 [the ‘Black Acts’] represented a departure from earlier ideas… ecclesiastical measures came with the obligatory subscription. By assenting to the supremacy of the crown in ecclesiastical matters and to a form of episcopacy no longer subordinate to the assembly the ministers were not only departing from Melvillian principles but were in effect condoning a series of innovations which marked a clean breach with the past…
With ‘subscription going on apace’ (Calderwood, History, 4.351), others who remained at home devised formulae for evading the full force of the subscription. When confronted by a subscription which was obligatory, the conscience-striken sought to make it conditional upon the inclusion of a face-saving, escape clause such as ‘in so far as it was agreeable to God’s Word’. (Calderwood, 4.213, 246)…
By signing, [John] Craig and another colleague, John Duncanson, made it unmistakably clear that their ‘subscription was neither sought to be allowance, either of the acts of parliament, nor of the state of the bishops, but to be a testimony of our obedience to his Majesty”. It was, moreover, along these same lines that Craig persuaded other ministers to subscribe, but this, in effect, rendered the whole subscription quite meaningless.
It is not surprising that even prominent Melvillians like John Durie should also come to terms with the subscription. Andrew Simson, the brother-in-law of archbishop Adamson, was perhaps typical of many when he refused to subscribe any subscription other than a qualified or limited version. By swearing he would not “preach any heresy or seditious doctrine, nor shall privately or publicly stir up the king’s Majesty’s subjects to any rebellion; and shall obey all his laws and acts of parliament, so far as they agree with the Word of God”, Simson succeeded in extricating himself from a tricky situation… according to Spottiswoode, that the ‘principal ministers’ all refused to accept the subscription on any terms other than on the inclusion of the clause ‘agreeing with the word of God’…
it is clear that mere acquiescence cannot be taken as necessarily indicating any widespread or active approval for either episcopacy or royal supremacy.”
.
Early-1600’s
Articles
Dunlop, A. Ian – ‘The Polity of the Scottish Church, 1600-1637’ (1954-1956)
“…provides an able and convenient summary of the church’s shape and practice as an institution comprehending both presbyterian and episcopalian features and sympathisers.” – David Stevenson, “Scottish Church History, 1600-1660, a Select Critical Bibliography” (1982), p. 211
Foster, W. Roland – ‘The Operation of Presbyteries in Scotland, 1600-1638’ (1964-1966)
“The picture of a church much more concerned with carrying out its routine functions than with controversy is confirmed by W. R. Foster…” – David Stevenson, “Scottish Church History, 1600-1660, a Select Critical Bibliography” (1982), p. 211
.
Book
Foster, W. Roland – The Church before the Covenants. The Church of Scotland, 1596-1638 Buy (1975) ToC
“The picture of a church much more concerned with carrying out its routine functions than with controversy is confirmed by W. R. Foster… Such studies, concentrating on the day to day life of the church and the extent of compromise, co-operation and continuity, undoubtedly provide a more accurate picture of the church as contemporaries saw it, and worked and worshipped in it, than sectarian histories which imply constant and bitter controversy at all levels.
But it is worth suggesting that this tendency to concentrate on the positive elements of the church and on its routine functioning has gone too far; from too much emphasis on controversy the pendulum has swung so far that there is a tendency to ignore the controversy, that undoubtedly did exist. Foster’s “church before the covenants” seems so placid and united that the reader is left bewildered; the covenants evidently explode like a great storm suddenly appearing when the sky is clear and blue, and no attempt is made to explain the explosion. Controversial topics are played down or ignored; little is said about worship, almost nothing about theology. The new prayer book of 1637 which sparked off revolt is not mentioned in a book purporting to cover the period up to 1638; nor is the emergence of Arminianism in Scotland, undermining Calvinist orthodoxy and producing new tensions. Thus Foster’s book really only deals with some aspects of the church; what it does do, it does very well, but though it tells the truth it does not attempt to tell the whole truth.” – David Stevenson, “Scottish Church History, 1600-1660, a Select Critical Bibliography” (1982), p. 211
.
On the Late-1600’s
Articles
Raffe, Alexander – pp. 180-188 of The Culture of Controversy: Religious Arguments in Scotland, 1660-1714 (Boydell Press, 2012) ToC
McDougall: “Raffe outlined three tenets of partial conformity [for laymen]: avoidance of regular attendance at services given by conformist ministers; hearing sermons in parishes in other towns; and refusal to receive the sacraments from a conformist minister. This chapter will reveal a broader range of ways in which ministers and the laity could avoid conforming to Episcopacy without separating from the church entirely.” – p. 142
McDougall, Jamie M. – Covenants & Covenanters in Scotland 1638–1679 PhD diss. (University of Glasgow, 2017)
4. Negotiating Covenanting Commitments: Partial Conformity 1662–1669 139-175
5. Indulgences and Nonconformity 1666–1679: New Perspectives 175-200
.
Book
Foster, Walter R. – Bishop & Presbytery: The Church of Scotland, 1661-1688 (London: SPCK, 1958)
.
On the Partial Conformity of the Westminster Divines & that it is consistent with her Standards
Article
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis – “Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
“Westminster”, pp. 18-21
“The Reformers, Puritans & Westminster Divines”, pp. 56-65
“The Westminster Standards”, pp. 65-77
.
Quotes
1600’s
Richard Baxter
Reliquiæ Baxterianæ: or, Mr. Richard Baxter’s Narrative of the most Memorable Passages of his Life & Times (London: Parkhurst, 1696), bk. 1, pt. 1
p. 33
“All these upon my own knowledge were the true causes why so great a number of those persons who were counted most religious, fell in with the parliament in England; insomuch that the generality of the stricter diligent sort of preachers joined with them, though not in meddling with arms, yet in judgment, and in flying to their garrisons; and almost all those afterwards called presbyterians were before conformists: Very few of all that learned and pious synod at Westminster were nonconformists before, and yet were for the parliament, supposing that the interest of religion lay on that side.
Yet did they still keep up an honorable esteem of all that they thought religious on the other side, such as Bishop Davenant, Bishop Hall, Bishop Morton, Archbishop Ussher, etc.”
.
p. 34
“§50. And whereas the king’s party usually say that it was the seditious preachers that stirred up the people, and were the cause of all this, I answer:
1. It is partly true and partly not: It is not true that they stirred them up to war (except an inconsiderable number of them, one perhaps in a county, if so much). But it is true that they discovered their dislike of the Book of Sports and bowing to altars, and diminishing preaching, and silencing ministers and such like; and were glad that the parliament attempted a reformation of them.
2. But then it is as true that almost all these were conformable ministers, the laws and bishops having cast out the nonconformists long enough before; insomuch that I know not of two nonconformists in a county. But those that made up the Assembly at Westminster, and that through the land were the honor of the parliament’s party, were almost all such as had till then conformed and took those things to be lawful in case of necessity, but longed to have that necessity removed.”
.
.
.
Related Pages
On the Ethics of Material Cooperation with, & Associations with Evil
On Doing the Greater Good when Possible
On the Ethical Principle of Avoiding the Greater Material or Miserable Evil
Separation from Rome: Necessary
Against Separation from Impure Civil Governments
On the Peace & Purity of the Church
Not All Truths must be Preached in All Circumstances
The Right of Continued Protest unto the Truth
Impure Worship may be Better than Pure
On Natural Law in Church Government
All Writings of Westminster Divines Online
On Things Indifferent (Adiaphora)
Natural Law Over-Rules Positive Law
On Social Distancing & the Church’s Adaptation in a Time of Spreading Disease
Sacraments: Extraordinary Circumstances
Holding Public Worship & Church Courts by Distance, & on Satellite Campuses
Relations Between the Tables of the Law
Works of Necessity & Mercy on the Lord’s Day in a Time of Danger & Spreading Disease
On Self-Care & Upkeep as a Legitimate Reason for Missing Public Worship & Church Activities
One is Not Absolutely Obliged to Attend Mid-Week Services
Absenting Oneself or Leaving a Church due to Necessities of Providence
Infants & Young Children Need Not Attend Service Every Week Absolutely
On Necessary Works on the Lord’s Day in the Economy
The Civil Magistrate’s Authority Around Spiritual Things (Circa Sacra)
Vows can Never Bind Beyond God’s Law
On the Immunities & Non-Immunities of the Church with Respect to the Civil Government
Civil & Church Governments are by Positive Law, but not the Family
Local Church Membership is Not Necessary to Partake of the Sacraments
History of the English Reformation & Puritan Era
Positive Commands Are Not to be Done at All Times & Circumstances
Priority of Not Doing what is Forbidden Over Keeping what is Commanded