In praise of Saint Bartholomew's Day 1662

Many thanks to the North American Anglican for publishing my essay 'Foundations of unity and accord: in praise of Saint Bartholomew’s Day 1662'.  The essay seeks to offer an alternative to the Whiggish assumptions which dominate contemporary Anglicanism regarding that Saint Bartholomew's Day and the so-called 'Great Ejection'.

Below is an extract from the essay, considering the stance of Richard Baxter.

---

The Non-conforming representatives at Savoy were not declaring the surplice, kneeling to receive, and signing with the cross at Baptism to be impossible barriers to communion.  If they were not to be abolished, the ‘Exceptions’ declared, there should be given “such a liberty, that those who are unsatisfied concerning their lawfulness or expediency, may not be compelled to the Practice of them, or Subscription to them”.  In other words, the Non-conforming representatives stated that they would minister in a Church of England in which these ceremonies, while not required, were yet retained.  

While admittedly Baxter stated he was “not satisfied” with the signing with the cross in Baptism, he was entirely content to accept kneeling and to tolerate the surplice:

For my own part, as I would receive the Lord's Supper kneeling, rather then not at all, so I have no Censure for those that wear the Surplice, though I never wore it.

In two ways, however, this illustrates how the Non-conformist position was hostile to what Cranmer described as the Church’s “unity and concord”.  Firstly, Baxter’s admission that he “never wore” the surplice demonstrated his rejection of both ecclesiastical authority and the authority of the magistrate. The Canons of 1604 required that “Every Minister saying the Publick Prayers, or Ministering the Sacraments, or other Rites of the Church, shall wear a decent and comely Surplice”.  Baxter, therefore, was - in the words of Article XXXIV - “he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren”.

Secondly, after having declared the surplice and kneeling to be ‘indifferent’ ceremonies, Baxter abandoned the communion of the Church of England, stating the requirement that such ceremonies be accepted as a cause for forsaking communion.  It is this which must lead us to question Diarmaid MacCulloch’s near hagiographical account of Baxter as “the first of the Anglicans”, abandoned by the Restoration Church of England having “altered its latitude”.  MacCulloch, indeed, approvingly quotes Baxter’s own assessment of his stance as “a Catholick Christian”.  This surely begs the question: would “a Catholick Christian” abandon communion with other Christians because of lawful, ancient ceremonies which Baxter himself accepted could be retained in the Church of England?

In place of MacCulloch’s rather improbable description of Baxter as “the first of the Anglicans”, let us turn instead to Jeremy Taylor, excoriating Baxter’s exaltation of modest, lawful ceremonies over the sin of schism:

there are amongst us such tender stomacks, that cannot endure Milk, but can very well digest Iron; Consciences so tender, that a Ceremony is greatly offensive, but Rebellion is not; a Surplice drives them away as a bird affrighted with a man of clouts, but their Consciences can suffer them to despise Government, and speak evil of Dignities, and curse all that are not of their Opinion, and disturb the peace of Kingdomes, and commit Sacrilege, and account Schisme the character of Saints … to stand in a clean Vestment is not so ill a sight as to see men stand in separation, and to kneel at the Communion is not so like Idolatry as Rebellion is to Witchcraft.

Despite the revisions to the Prayer Book; despite the recognition - by Non-conforming clergy and Conformists - that ceremonies were in themselves adiaphora; despite the fact that these ceremonies had been required by lawful authority in the Church into which he was ordained; despite all this, Baxter refused to conform. He rejected the Cranmerian and Hookerian vision of “unity and concord”, the vision defended by the 1662 Act of Uniformity.  He refused to follow the way of “a Catholick Christian”, regarding schism of less significance than conformity in a Protestant, orthodox Church which required its ministers to wear the surplice and make the sign of the Cross on the child’s forehead at Baptism.  It was a confirmation of the Cranmerian and Hookerian understanding that acceptance of ceremonies was indeed necessary for the Church’s peace and unity; rejection of those lawful ceremonies brought disunity. As John Durel, addressing the Non-conformists, said in his defence of the 1662 Settlement:

take heed you do not ascribe to God such things as he never acknowledged for his, taking your own private opinions for his Laws, which is the greatest usurpation of God’s Authority, and in a manner to make yourselves your own Gods.