The following article seeks to correct the misleading figures for ejected clergy under the 1662 Act of Uniformity. This is to set the record straight. Lee Gatiss is currently director of the Church Society, London. He was one of the speakers at this year's Westminster Conference, held in London this past week.
========================================================================
As Lee Gatiss appears intent on
pressing his figure of 936 ejectees in 1662 (see his recent blog posting), it
might be helpful to recall what A. G. Matthews says in fuller detail, in his
Calamy Revised (Clarendon Press, 1934), on whose authority Lee says he is
content to rely. The following is taken from Matthews’s ‘Introduction’,
p. xiii-xiv.
It is true that the figure that
Matthews gives for ministers and lecturers ejected in 1662 is 936. However, that
is not the whole story. In addition to those 936, Matthews gives the figure of
695 for those ejected in 1660 and a further 129 for those ejected ‘at uncertain
date’. This gives a total of 1760. Calamy notes that 171 of these ‘afterwards
conformed’.
It is important to note, in
view of Lee’s comments during his paper at the Conference, that Calamy makes
clear that duplication (because some were ejected twice) has been eliminated
from these figures – each individual is counted only once, even if they were
ejected twice.
Also, the 1660 figure includes
those (290 in all) who lost livings due to the restoration of previous
incumbents or due to other disqualifications under the 1660 Act for Conforming
and Restoring of Ministers.
Calamy notes that a further 149
men were ejected from academic and scholastic posts in 1660 or 1662.
This produces a total of 1909
men.
Essentially, the difference of
course is simply that Lee is taking 1662 figures only (as he does say) and is
ignoring the 1660 and ‘uncertain’ figures, as well as the academic
ejectees.
....
Robert
Robert
Strivens
Principal
London Theological
Seminary
104 Hendon
Lane
London N3
3SQ
020 8346
7587
3 comments:
This is interesting. In what way is it a "correction" (as the title claims it is) when Robert Strivens explicitly says Professor Gatiss (or whatever his title is) got the numbers he quoted *right*? i.e. "Lee is taking 1662 figures only (as he does say)" He was talking about ministers ejected in 1662 (not academics or teachers), and gave the right number, didn't he? Why does the header to your post then claim he was "misleading" us?
And what was he trying to say when he mentioned this number in the talk anyway? Were you there, so you can tell us please? Was there a point, or was he just deliberately trying to downplay the ejection because he thinks it was a good thing or something? I thought from his book that he considered it a tragedy?
My attention has been drawn to your re-use (unauthorised by me) of my email concerning numbers of ministers ejected in 1660-62. Your comment at the head of my piece wrongly suggests that Lee Gatiss misrepresents the figures. As my email is at pains to point out, he did not. He was not misleading. He gave the figure for 1662 ejectees correctly. My email provides additional, not correcting, information. I would be grateful if you would make this clear by means of a correction on your blog. Thank you. Robert Strivens
It is a correction in the sense that Lee Gatiss seemed to give the impression that 936 Puritans in total were ejected from their livings, when it is generally accepted that approximately 2000 puritans were ejected under the 1662 Act of Uniformity. It is probably more a clarification of the figures involved in the entire ejection period.
The number of ejectees for that year was 936 (correct). But the focus on that figure tended to diminish the awfulness of what was done to these gallant servants of Christ and the Gospel.
What I am concerned about it that evangelicals never forget what the church did to those great men, and what the church is still doing to evangelical ministers within the UK today. We must never make excuses for apostate churches whose faithfulness to the Gospel is patently lacking. Churches tend to prefer "firm's men" and promote them the exclusion of courageous servants of the Word.
It is to this that Christians ministers are called and it is precisely this kind of evil treatment that they can only expect from churches that have departed from the purity of the Gospel many moons ago.
I apologise if I have inadvertently misrepresented anyone's views.
Post a Comment