Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:05:04.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduction of Episcopacy as a Means to Unity in England, 1640–1662

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

James C. Spalding  and
Maynard F. Brass
James C. Spalding
Affiliation:
State University of Iowa
Maynard F. Brass
Affiliation:
Shepherd College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his inaugural address at the Union Theological Seminary, Robert T. Handy called attention to the present possibility of reexamining the whole course of church history from unitive perspectives. Handy pointed out that “the church historian in an ecumenical era can with particular profit devote special attention to the unitive hopes, dreams, and actions of the past.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , December 1961 , pp. 414 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Handy, Robert T., “The Ecumenical Vision and Church History,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, Vol. XV, No. 2, (01., 1960), p. 124.Google Scholar

2. The phrase “reduction of episcopacy” is taken from the title of Archbishop James Ussher's The Reduction of Episcopacie unto the Form of Synodical Government which was proposed in 1641 and evidently circulated at that time only in manuscript form among the members of the Bishop Williams' Committee of the House of Lords. The first publication of the pamphlet was after Ussher's death in 1656, and it was evidently printed directly from a manuscript in the hands of a former member of the Williams' Committee. Dr. Nicholas Bernard, Ussher's Chaplain, was not happy with this printing partly because it did not indicate that it was written in 1641 rather than in 1655 or 1656 and partly because it contained marginal notes to which he took exception. Bernard, therefore, came out with the publication of a “true copy.” The major difference in the two is that the first publication has the controversial marginal notes which show how the “reduced episeopacy” can be paralleled with the main features of the presbyterial government of the Church of Scotland as it existed in 1641. Dr. Bernard maintained that Ussher expressly ordered these notes to be left out if ever the document should be published. However, this statement of Bernard indicates that the marginal notes really were there in the unpublished, manuscript copies in circulation.

3. Unity was not the only, or in some instances even the primary, concern of those who desired a comprehensive national church. The important advantage to such an establishment in the minds of many was that it would be a central agency for the oversight of the moral life of the nation.

4. Bosher, R., The Making of the Restoration Settlement, Oxford Press, New York, (1951), p. 27Google Scholar; Turnbull, G. H., Hartlib, Dury, and Comenius, University Press of Liverpool, London, (1947), p. 313.Google Scholar

5. Baillie, Robert, Letters and Journals, Bannantyne Edition, Edinburg, (1841), Vol. 1, pp. 286f.Google Scholar

6. The idea of a limited (calked) episcopacy had wider currency than the particular point of view of Archbishop Ussher. It had been practiced on several occasions in Scotland since 1560. Baillie must have been aware of these. There is a direct connection between the Scottish experience of limited episcopacy and Archbishop Ussher in his correspondence with John Forbes, author of Irenicum, supporting such a position, and son of the late Patrick Forbes, 1564–1635, Bishop of Aberdeen. Forbes had produced such a good impression in his practice of the limited episcopacy that the positive feeling which resulted had formed the basis for the most serious opposition in Scotland to the adoption of the National Covenant. See Ussher, James, The Whole Works …, Elrington Edition, London, (1847), Vol. XV, pp. 544, 549.Google ScholarForbes, John, Irenicum, (1629)Google Scholar. Henderson, G. D., Religious Life in Seventeenth Century, Scotland, Cambridge University Press,(1937), Chapter 2.Google Scholar

7. The First and Large Petition of the Citie of London and Other Inhabitants Thereabouts: … 1641, p. 1.

8. Ibid., p. 2.

9. Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical Treated upon by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York … in their several Synods begun at London and York. London, 1640. E2 recto.Google Scholar

10. “Prelacy” became a term of reproach around which those of varying opinion united in desire for church reform. Prelacy was defined as a “transcendent exhorbitant sort of episcopacy” by Richard Baxter.

11. See Verney Papers. Notes of Proceedings in the Long Parliament Temp. Charles I, London; printed for the Camden Society, (1845), pp. 4ffGoogle Scholar, for some idea of the text of the Ministers' Remonstrance.

12. Bishop Joseph Hall was Calvinist in his theology. (“I will live and die in the Suffrage of that Synod of Dort.”) The Works edited by Philip Wynter, Oxford, (1863), Vol. X, p. 526Google Scholar. He took issue with Laud upon occasion and he felt that he was regarded by the latter as showing too much favor to Puritans. On the other hand, Laud defended himself against the charge that he promoted no one but of his own way of thinking by referring to his appointment of Hall to Exeter. Laud's, Works, Vol. IV, p. 297.Google Scholar Just because Hall was no Laud in his reputation among Puritans, it was more politic for the Humble Remonstrance in defence of prelatical episcopacy to come from him to the Parliament. Bishop Hall avoided the use of the term “prelacy” in this tract.

13. [Henderson, Alexander], The Unlawfulness and Danger of Limited Pretacy, or Perpetual Presideney in the Church Briefly Discovered, 1641 (01 23)Google Scholar. [Gillespie, George], Certain Reasons tending to prove th Unlawfulness and inexpediency of all Diocesan Episcopacy (even the most moderate), 1641, (02 28)Google Scholar. Baillie, Robert, The Unlawfulness and Danger of Limited Episcopacie, London, 1641 (02).Google Scholar

14. Rushworth, John, Historical Collections, Vol. IV, p. 173, London, 1721.Google Scholar

15. Commons Journals, Vol II, p. 100.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as C. J.

16. See entries in Lords Journals, Vol. IV, pp. 174, 177, and 180.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as L. J. See also the Reliquiae Baxterianae (Sylvester Edition), London, 1696, Part I, p. 27.Google Scholar Cited hereafter as R. B.

17. Before Charles I had come to the throne, Bishop Williams had been a right hand man to King James I, serving as Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. Having had such high public position in the past, this Abiathar was hardly likely to have sympathy with those in Parliament who desired to get the clergy out of state offices. When Laud became primate, Williams had urged a more conciliatory attitude toward puritans. He had even advocated the use of a communion table rather than an altar. While there was some justification for his being imprisoned by the Star Chamber on other grounds than this, there were those who regarded Williams as a puritan conscience being persecuted by Laud when he was deprived of his benefiees and imprisoned on July 11, 1637. The House of Lords had released him at the beginning of the Long Parliament on November 16, 1640. One of his first acts of freedom was to have the altar at St. Margaret's in Westminster moved to the center of the church to be used as a communion table for Parliament. As Dean of Westminster, as well as Bishop of Lincoln, he felt free to use this authority.

18. See footnote 2. A convenient place to find Ussher's proposal is in R. B., Part II, pp. 238–240. Ussher had discussed these views before he submitted his plan as is evidenced in Baillie's letter cited earlier. This letter was written months before the Williams' Committee met. In fact Ussher had had to obtain an order on February 9, suppressing a pamphlet which purported to present his position.

19. Ussher, James, The Judgement of Doctor Rainoldes touching the Originall of Episcopacy, London, 1641.Google Scholar

20. Durie, John, “A brief declaration of the several forms of government received in the reformed churches beyond the seas,” 1641. Contained in Certaine Briefe Treatises, written by Diverse Learned Men, concerning the ancient and moderne Government of the Church, Oxford, 1641.Google Scholar

21. SirDering, Edward, A Collection of Speeches made by Sir Edward Dering, Knight and Baronet, in matter of Religion, London, 1642, p. 3.Google Scholar

22. Ibid., p. 3. Rushworth, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 293–296, contains the speech by Dering. See The Order and Forme for Church Government by Bishops and the Clergie of this Kingdom. Voted in the House of Commons on Friday, July 16, 1641. Printed in 1641.

23. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1641-1643, pp. 35f.Google Scholar

24. Herbert Thorndike should also be mentioned for his statements at this time in the direction of a reduced episcopacy. He published Of the Government of Churches; A discourse Pointing at the Primitive Form, Cambridge, 1641.Google Scholar In this he held that “the Church once had Presbyters that joyned advise with the Bishop in all church-matters” (p. 107), and he believed that steps should, be taken to restore that condition.

Richard Baxter felt that Thorndike had moved to the right from this opinion by the time of the Savoy Conference in 1661. R. B., Part II, p. 364. See also Baxter's, Disputations on Church Government, 1659, p. 197.Google Scholar

Louis du Moulin is thought to be the author of Vox Populi, Expressed in XXXV Motions to this Present Parliament. Printed in 1641. In this document a reduced episcopacy is definitely proposed.

25. See entries in L. J., Vol. IV, pp. 496, 499, 580.Google Scholar

26. C. J., Vol. II, p. 322; Rushworth, Vol. IV, p. 450.

27. C. J., Vol. II, p. 564.

28. See Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1641-1643, p. 489Google Scholar, for an entry regarding the letter to Ussher.

29. Lightfoot, John, The Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, London, 1824, Vol. XIII, pp. 12–14Google Scholar. Warfield, B. B., The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, N. Y., Oxford Press, 1931 p. 37Google Scholar. See also article by Coffin, Henry Sloane, “Episcopacy in the Westminster Assembly” in Presbyterian Tribune, Vol. LIX, No. 2.Google Scholar Note D. N. B. entries for these men.

30. Baxter, Richard, Five Disputations of Church Government, London, 1659, p. 331Google Scholar. Gauden, John, Analusis, the Loosing of St. Peter's Bonds, London, 1660, pp. 17, 21Google Scholar. Case, Thomas, The Quarrell of the Covenant…, London, 1644.Google Scholar

31. A Modest Offer of Some Meet Considerations Tendered to the Learned Procurator and to the Rest of the Assembly of Divines Met at Westminister, by a True Lover of Truth and Peace, 1644. Richard Baxter ascribed this Modest Offer to Hall, Bishop in his Treatise on Episcopacy, London, 1681, p. 214.Google ScholarThe Modest Offer is also published in Hall's Works, edited by Philip Wynter, 1863, Vol. IX, pp. 444–455.Google Scholar

32. Cook, John, Redintegratio Amoris, London, n.d. (1647), pp. 41f.Google Scholar See Maclear's, James unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Puritan Party, 1603–1643: A Study in a Lost Reformation, 1947, University of Chicago, regarding the early 1640'sGoogle Scholar. He states that, “There are good grounds to believe that it was in the moderate Puritan program that most Englishmen outside of London found the truest approximation of their conception's of right religious reform… The Episcopal group was never given the hearing to which its numbers would seem to have entitled it.” (pp. 242f.) See also pp. 237f. The “good grounds” are not documented.

33. Gardner, Samuel H., The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 2nd Edition, Oxford, 1936, pp. 275fGoogle Scholar. Ferne, Henry, Episcopacy and Presbytery Considered, London, 1647.Google Scholar

34. This paper is in the Clarendon MSS (No. 1824), Bodleian Library. It was printed in The English Historical Review, Vol. II, Part I, April, 1887, pp. 341f.Google Scholar

35. Gandner, op. cit., p. 313.

36. Charles maintained that consultation between himself, Parliament and the Assembly of Divines would result in “the Alteration and Regulating of this present Hierarchy and Government; so as Episcopacy, reduced to the primitive Usage, may be settled and continued in this Church.” L. J., Vol. X, p. 539Google Scholar. See the specific objections to his offer, Ibid., p. 560. Thereupon, the king said he would agree to a bill abolishing all the hierarchy exceptbishops while discussions would settle “the Practice of the Primitive Church in Point of Episcopacy;” and if no settlement were reached Within three years, “the Power of Ordination shall not be exercised by Bishops, without the Counsel and Assistance of Presbyters,” or if during that period, Charles were “convinced that theFunction of Bishops is not agreeable to the Word of God,…he will…take away Episcopacy.” Ibid., p. 561. He pleaded that he held to this as a real point of conscience and sought “that the Primitive Office of a Bishop…be preserved” until he were satisfied. Ibid., p. 603. In his final bid, Charles offered to “suspend the Episcopal Power, as well in Point of Ordination of Ministers as in that of Jurisdiction, until He and His Two Houses agree what Government shall be established in the future.” Ibid., p. 622.

Parliamentary reluctance to accept Charles as sincere, as well as their fear of a revival of prelacy if episcopacy be retained in any form, certainly was not without some basis in experience.

37. R. B., Part I, p. 62.

38. The Clarke Papers, Vol. II, p. 51. Edited by C. H. Firth. Printed for the Camden Society, 1894.Google Scholar

39. R. B., Part I, page 62.

40. The Presbyterian plot during this period excited these three groups: some of the Royalist exiles, the Scots, London Presbyterian ministers and laymen. Its leaders obtained the signing of the Covenant by Charles II. This Presbyterian plot involved an attempt to reintroduce Presbyterianism rather than a reduced episcopacy. Therefore, it is not a primary concern of this article. The end of these hopes came with the defeat of the Scots forces of Charles II at Worcester, September 3, 1651. See Carlson, Leland H., “A History of the Presbyterian Party from Pride's Purge to the Dissolution of the Long Parliament,” Church History, Vol. XI, 1942, pp. 83–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. Richard Baxter to John Durie, Daniel Williams Library MSS. 59.6.90 and R. B. to J. D. Nov. 20, 1660, DWL MSS 59.6.88. Cited in Nuttall, Geoffrey F., “Presbyterians and Independents, Some Movements for Unity Three Hundred Years Ago,” The Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society of England, Vol X, No. 1, 05 1952, pp. 4–15Google Scholar. This November letter from Baxter to Durie should cancel out the false observation made by Derham, A. Morgan in his article “Richard Baxter and the Oecumenical Movement,” Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. XXIII, 1951, pp. 96–115Google Scholar. Derham stated that Baxter was solely concerned With England whereas the ecumenical movement is world-wide (p. 111). Baxter also, according to Derham, would not have had any of the “wistful Romeward glances which some leaders in the Oecumenical Movement seem to be making” for “to him the whole Roman Catholic system was corrupt and full of error” (p. 113). This one letter shows Derham to be wrong on both counts.

42. See Baxter's, Christian Concord, 1653Google Scholar for the “constitution” of the Worcestershire Association. Schlatter, Richard (Richard Baxter and Puritan Politics, Rutgers Press, 1957, p. 22)Google Scholar and Knox, R. Buick (“Archbishop Ussher and Richard Baxter,” The Ecumenical Review, Vol. XII, No. 1, 10, 1959, pp. 50–63)CrossRefGoogle Scholar have classified Baxter as taking a position somewhere between the Congregationalists and the Presbyterians. Schlatter does not state the source of his opinion. Knox uses almost exclusively as his source Baxter's, Church-History of the Government of Bishops and their Councils Abbreviated, London, 1680.Google Scholar He quotes from Baxter's preface to the Church-History concerning proud and ambitious bishops “turning single churches into an association of many churches.” This sounds like a Congregationalist speaking. However, the part of the statement not quoted by Knox continues “and to be but chapels or parts of the diocesan church… and the turning of arbitrating bishops into the common judicatories which must govern all Christians.” Baxter held that the first order of bishops were the pastors of single churches. However, even in the passage used by Knox, Baxter spoke of lawful “arbitrating” bishops. He also made allowance for a ministry which was not fixed, “unfixed itinerant general pastors, indefinitely taking care of many churches.” He wrote of the development of prelacy being “as if the bishop of Antioch should have put down one thousand bishops about him, and made himself the sole bishop of their churches.” By this “the office of presbyters is changed into semipresbyters,” and “discipline is made impossible, as it is for one general without inferior captains to rule an army,” Church-History, p. 22. We would hold that an Independent or Presbyterian could not have used the analogy of General and Captains for the relationship between an “arbitrating bishop” and the “parochial bishops” who serve together in a “common judicatory.” There is much to be found in other Baxter literature in favor of the reduced episcopacy. By his own testimony (Treatise of Episcopacy, London, 1680Google Scholar, unpaged Preface, sig. A2 recto) he came to ask questions about episcopal government first as an episcopally ordained young pastor at the time of the Etcetera Oath. He maintained that he came then to conclusions that he held for the rest of his career. Like most Puritans his primary concern was for discipline in the church, but he always saw unity as the means to implement that discipline. This gives his career its consistency.

Abernathy, George R. Jr, in his article “Richard Baxter and the Cromwellian Church,” The Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. XXIV, No. 3, 05, 1961, pp. 215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar, assumes Baxter to be a Presbyterian of a moderate sort. Then he has to explain why, being a Presbyterian, Baxter did what he did. It is easier not to misclassify him in the first place.

43. Gauden, John, Hieraspistes, A Defence by Way of Apology for the Ministry and Ministers of the Church of England, London, 1653.Google Scholar Also cited by Baxter, in Treatise of Episcopacy, Part II, p. 219.Google Scholar

44. R. B., Part I, p. 62; R. B., Part II, p. 206.

45. This letter was published for the first time in Schlatter, op. cit., pp. 57ff.

46. A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe (ed. T. Birch), Vol. V, London, 1742, pp. 598f.Google Scholar

47. Baxter, , Five Disputations, pp. 339–349.Google Scholar

48. Gauden, John, Kakourgoi, London, 1659, pp. 104f.Google Scholar

49. For a statement which reconsiders the thought and role of Clarendon in relationship to this, see Abernathy, George R. Jr “Clarendon and the Declaration of Indulgence,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. XI, 04, 1960, pp. 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. R. B., Part II, p. 218.

51. An ominous sign in June was the cold shoulder John Dury received when he sent a letter to Charles II on June 6, 1660, proposing methods which should be used for “treating about peace and unity in matters of Religion between the Episcopal and Presbyterian parties.” (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1660–1661, p. 112)Google Scholar. No answer was made to this letter, and Dury was refused a hearing when he applied for the privilege of an interview with the king and Archbishop Juxon. He then sent a memorandum account of his union negotiations to Batten, Juxon J. M., John Dury, University of Chicago Press, 1944, pp. 176f.Google Scholar Late in June, several letters of James Sharpe describe the situation. On June 21, he said, “the course of prelacy is carrying on without any opposition; so that they who were for the moderation thereof, apprehend they have lost the game.” On June 26 he wrote, “The generality of the people are doting after prelacy and the Service-book.” On the same date in another letter he said, “The presbyterian ministers are now busy to get terms of moderation from the episcopalians. There are discontents and grumbling, but the episcopal men have the wind of them, and know how to make use of it.” Wodrow, Robert, History of the Sufferings of Church of Scotland, Glasgow, 1828, Vol. I, pp. 44f.Google Scholar

52. Wodrow, op. cit., p. 54.

53. R. B., pp. 242–248.

54. L. J., Vol. XI, pp. 179–182Google Scholar. Regarding the time when the group headed by Baxter first received the king's statement, Baxter said, “We saw that it would not serve to heal our Differenees.” Though they appealed to Clarendon that by the Declaration their “Endeavors as to Concord would all be frustrate,” they received in response only a request to write out their thoughts. This task was given to Baxter, who wrote out a long list of objections, knowing that it served only to “the Satisfying our Consciences and Posterity that we had done our Duty.” Sardonically Baxter remarked that in the king's Declaration, “Matters of Government seemed to be determined.” R. B., Part II, pp. 265, 303.

55. Brown, Louise, “The Religious Factors in the Convention Parliament,” English Historical Review, Vol. XXII, 1907, pp. 51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bosher, op. cit., p. 198. Drysdale, A. H., History of Presbyterians in England, London, 1889, p. 376.Google Scholar

56. R. B., Part I, p. 62.