View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital Commons @ Butler University Butler University Digital Commons @ Butler University Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS College of Liberal Arts & Sciences 1995 'Conformists' and 'Church Trimmers': the Liturgical Legacy of Restoration Anglicanism John D. Ramsbottom Butler University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers Part of the European History Commons, and the Political History Commons Recommended Citation Ramsbottom, John D., "'Conformists' and 'Church Trimmers': the Liturgical Legacy of Restoration Anglicanism" Anglican and Episcopal History / (1995): 17-36. Available at https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers/714 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "Conformists" and "Church Trimmers": The Liturgical Legacy of Restoration Anglicanism by JohnD. Ramsbottom attentionpaid to religion in recent accounts of Restoration The England has had the refreshingresult of adding complexityto the traditionallyone-dimensional image of the established Church in this period. No longer is "Anglicanism"seen as synonymouswith the reactionarycreed of countrygentlemen. Further research has even revealed fissuresin their apparently monolithic opposition to dissent.1Historians have also scrutinizedthe church's devotional life, discerninga wide spectrum of styles and customs. As one observer has summarizedit, "the religiousexperience of the vast majoritywho were nominallyAnglicans was hardly uniform."2Many parish con- gregationswere mixed- they comprised "partial conformists,"who attendedweekly servicesbut who also participatedin a range of other activities,some of them illegal.3 In addition to the diversityof lay opinion in the parishes, bishops faced the fact that many clergymen JonathanBarry, "The Politics of Religion in Restoration Bristol," and Newton E. Key, "Comprehensionandthe Breakdown ofConsensus inRestoration Herefordshire," bothin ThePolitics ofReligion inRestoration England, ed. Tim Harris, Paul Seaward and Mark Goldie, (London,1990); Tim Harris, "Was the Tory Reaction Popular? Attitudes ofLondoners towards thePersecution ofDissent, 1681-6," London Journal 13, 2 (1988),106-120. In fact, the latest studyof the Cavalier Parliament locates the most vociferous supporters ofthe church's ec- clesiasticalmonopoly among a small circle of courtiers rather than among "Anglican" back- benchers.The Commons were ambivalent about the persecution ofdissent, and in the coun- trysidethe new penal statutes were often enforced only half-heartedly. P.Seaward, The Cavalier Parliamentandthe Reconstruction ofthe Old Regime, 1661-1667 (Cambridge, England, 1988), chap.7, esp. 163; Anthony Fletcher, "The Enforcement ofthe Conventicle Acts, 1664-1679," inPersecution andToleration, ed.W. J. Shiels, Studies in Church History, 21(London, 1984), 235-46. TimHarris, review of John Spurr, Restoration Church, American Historical Revew 97, 5 (December1992), 1519. 3JohnSpurr summarizes the evidence in The Restoration Church of England, 1646-1689 (NewHaven, 1991), 198-201. See also Donald A. Spaeth, "Common Prayer? Popular observance [AnglicanandEpiscopal History, 1995, vol. LXIX, no. 1] ®1995by the Historical Society ofthe Episcopal Church. All rights reserved. 17 This content downloaded from 159.242.192.186 on Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:04:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 18 ANGLICAN AND EPISCOPAL HISTORY themselves had misgivingsabout the restored liturgy.A significant number who had served under the Cromwellian regime remained in their cures after 1662.4 Historians frequentlycite the deliberate moderation of Richard Kidder, vicar of St. Helen's Bishopsgate and later a bishop, who chose to administercommunion to parishioners who refused to kneel rather than "sending them to the Non- conformists."The incumbentof the notoriousPuritan enclave of Ban- bury followed the same custom.5 Given the persistentdifficulty of enforcinguniformity one might question whether the parish churches shared any common identity, at least in practical terms.The present studyargues thatthis apparent inabilityto regulate clerical conformityand lay devotion provoked an unexpectedly strong reaction in the church after 1680. Follow- ing the Exclusion Crisis, a new breed of less accommodatingprelates soughtto reaffirmthe distinctivefeatures of Anglicanismby rejecting any compromise with what theyviewed as nonconformity.With the growthof this"sacramentalist" movement, the reign ofJames II takes on additional significance as a milestone in the development of Anglican worship. The Glorious Revolution is commonly seen as ofthe Anglican liturgy inRestoration Wiltshire," inParish, Church and People, Local Studies inLay Religion, 1350-1750, ed. S. J.Wright (London, 1988), 125-51; Claire Cross, Church andPeople, 1450-1660: The Triumph ofthe Laity in the English Church (Atlantic Highlands, NewJersey, 1976), 229-31. Compare John D. Ramsbottom,"Presbyterians and'Partial Con- formity'inthe Restoration Church of England," Journal ofEcclesiastical History 43, 2 (April 1992),249-70. 4I. M. Greenfirst stressed the persistence ofCommonwealth clergy after 1662. (The Reestablishmentofthe Church ofEngland, 1660-1663, [Oxford, 1978]). Spurr has added fur- therparticulars (Restoration Church, 42-49, 184-90). Ralph Josselin, minister ofEarl's Colne, isoften cited as anexample ofa Commonwealthconformist whoconsistently escaped punish- mentunder the new regime. 5Spurr,Restoration Church, 207; Tim Harris, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles 11 (Cambridge,England, 1987, 68. According tothe churchwarden atBanbury, the minister wasguilty of several offenses, including not wearing the surplice and "suffering those who pleaseto be admitted tothe Receving ofthe holy Communion (sitting- a pretended custome)." Churchwardens'Presentments inthe Oxfordshire Peculiars ofDorchester, Thame, and Ban- bury,Oxfordshire Record Society Series, vol. 10 (1928), 218-21. 1 owe this reference toDr. BartBlankenfeld. Arecent survey ofthe situation inthe Southwest finds that "Puritan devia- tionsfrom Anglican norms inperforming theliturgy remained asprevalent within the Church afterthe Civil War as before." Jonathan Barry, "The Seventeenth andEighteenth Centuries" in TheChurch in Devon and Cornwall, ed. NicholasOrme (Exeter, England, 1991), 89. This content downloaded from 159.242.192.186 on Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:04:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions RESTORATION ANGLICANISM 19 a defense of the Protestantreligion against the threat of a Catholic monarch- which it was - but it also marked the failure of an alter- native vision of the established church itself. I Clerical nonconformityin the Restorationchurch had at least two related aspects. On the one hand, hundreds of ministerswho had served under the Cromwellian regime retained theirbenefices after 1662. Such men mightrightly be suspected of entertainingreserva- tions about the restoredliturgy yet, as in the oft-notedcase of Ralph Josselin,might never be effectivelysilenced.6 But the persistence of "Commonwealth conformists"into the new era was only part of the problem.Hand in hand withthe vagariesof some clergywent a strain oflay independence thathad onlybeen exacerbated by the civilwars. In attemptingto bringboth order and pietyto theirdioceses, Restora- tionbishops faced an unenviable task. They were obliged to negotiate among differentfactions within the local community,heeding not only the "loyal Anglicans" but also lay-people who occupied the margins of parish life, at least in terms of conformity. The number of "Commonwealth conformists"varied sharplyfrom one region to another.7I. M. Green, who coined the term,originally calculated that theycomprised between 45% and 50% of the Win- chester and Canterburyclergy by 1663. In Bath and Wells diocese, despite the hostilityof the restoredbishop, William Piers, the figure approached one in five. In the diocese of Chichester, however, the proportionof parish livingsoccupied by men who had served under 8 Cromwell amounted to only 13% in 1663-4. 6Spurr,Restoration Church , 188-89. 7Green,The Reestablishment ofthe Church of England, 1660-1663 (Oxford, 1978), 224. Comparethe figure quoted by Spurr for Warwickshire andDevon, 46% and 62% respec- tively(Restoration Church, 46). But information isnot available concerning the disposition ofevery benefice during this period, and since a changeof incumbent was more likely to berecorded than mere continuity, thefigures we possess probably overstate the degree of turnover.Nor should clergy who merely attended university under the Puritans necessarily be included,as theywere by Green. JohnRamsbottom, "Puritan Dissenters and English Churches, 1630-1690" (Ph.D. diss., YaleUniversity, 1987), 101-3. This content downloaded from 159.242.192.186 on Thu, 17 Sep 2015 20:04:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 20 ANGLICAN AND EPISCOPAL HISTORY Some holdovers from Commonwealth days were unrepentant Puritans. One of the most conspicuous offenderswas Robert Jago, vicar of Wendron and Helston in Cornwall frombefore the Restora- tion, who was prosecuted by the bishop in 1664. Jago had made