4. The Reaction to Barlow’s The Summe and Substance of the Conference (II)
Not much attention seems to have been paid to Jacob’s complaints about The Summe and substance of the conference at the time, but his objections were not forgotten. They reappear throughout the seventeenth century and after, and when they appeared they were answered. The controversies were long-winded and perhaps do not need to be repeated in much detail to show the one thing that is important: that there was and could not be a satisfactory conclusion.
In the 1650s Thomas Fuller and Peter Heylyn fought over Fuller's report that some writers had complained that Barlow, the "professed adversary" of the puritans, had set forth the conference "partially" and to their disadvantage. , even though Fuller had only said that others complained, but not that they complained justly; rather he thought they had no case.[1] Despite this, Fuller's remark has been interpreted just as Heylyn took it: the original DNB entry on Barlow remarks that Fuller 'to some extent' endorses the complaint against him. In this exchange, Peter Heylyn also asked how it was, if Barlow had set out the conference partially, that none of the ministers at the conference, or anyone speaking for them, ever demonstrated its "partiality and falsehoods", and that Barlow's book had never been “convicted of any such crime as it stands charged with, in any one particular passage to this very day".[2]
Henry Hickman, a controversialist who wrote much in defence of non-conformity soon found an answer: the puritan ministers never put out an account of the conference in opposition to Barlow's because "it was an evil time, and the prudent might think themselves obliged to be silent". While this is a trivial point, other accounts were known, and it may be asked why these were not put forward in opposition. Hickman also related that Barlow on his deathbed did "with grief complain of the wrong he had done" to Rainolds and his colleagues, by "misreporting some of their answers, and certain passages therein contained". Rather than explain then where he had this story, Hickman promised "to give a satisfactory account to any person of ingenuity that shall desire it".[3]
As might be expected, Heylyn demanded this 'satisfactory account'.[4] Hickman’s account is convoluted, to say the least. He wrote that for the truth of the story, "M. H. did consult Mr. Sparks now with the Lord." Mr Sparks had answered through "his friend Mr. J. M.," that he remembered correctly he had heard it from "Mr H. J., a very aged Minister". Hickman also claimed that Mr Sparks, son of Dr. Sparks, had spoken "with great indignation of the abuse put upon either his Father or Dr. Reynolds" when Barlow was mentioned. He further claimed that a Mr Pierce and his friends and a Mr Wilkinson of Waddesdon could support the story.[5] The Mr Sparks "now with the Lord" is neither Thomas Sparke nor his son but another, a Noel Sparkes. This whole account is like Sir Philip Sidney's Mother Miso, who said of a story, "I will tell you now, what a good old woman told me, what an old wise man told her, what a great learned clerk told him, and gave it him in writing; and here I have it in my prayer book".[6]
Heylyn retorted that "the man himself is dead, from whom we are to take our greatest light in so dark a business", and that the whole story "may be one of those pious frauds devised by the Pamphleter ... for imposing as well upon the dead as upon the living". After the dead man, the story rests on two men known only by their initials, and "as easy to be found, and as honest folk as Nicholas Nemo, in Utopia, or Madam Charity of the Oudemnon street in Mantines, or Doctor H. H. in the Margin of the Libel which is now before us'". Further, he asked why this story "should lie concealed (like a spark raked up in ashes) five and fifty years, and then blaze out on a sudden, when it was not thought of". Finally, he said that he himself had known Thomas Sparke's sons, and "never heard the least word from either of them of any wrong done, or supposed to be done by Doctor Barlow, in drawing up the substance and abridgment of (the conference)".[7]
In 1679 William Barrett, in The Nonconformists Vindicated, repeated the story with full names for the initials.[8] It was repeated again by James Peirce in 1710,[9] answered by John Strype, in his Life of Whitgift in 1718, and again in 1720 in an anonymous answer to James Peirce.[10] The argument ended in a draw. No new arguments or information arose until the twentieth century. The objections to Barlow survived, and one might speak of a puritan, or at least non-conformist historical tradition coming from such works as Neale’s History of the Puritans.[11] The doubts survived in the main-stream received opinion as well; for Barlow has been given a luke-warm acquittal of wilful misrepresentation, at least in the absence of a more correct narrative on the other side, and his work judged to be as fair an account as could be expected from a partisan who had no sympathy for the arguments he was reporting. Even this faint praise was abandoned from 1961, when Mark Curtis championed the Harleian Account as the authentic voice of the conference. The reasons Curtis gave to substantiate his claim that The Summe and Substance is unreliable and "a skilful piece of party propaganda" almost all come from points where it differs from this Harleian Account. He claims, but does not demonstrate that "at all important points" this account is "consistent with the rest of the evidence". The obvious question is why this account should be believed.
In the 1650s Thomas Fuller and Peter Heylyn fought over Fuller's report that some writers had complained that Barlow, the "professed adversary" of the puritans, had set forth the conference "partially" and to their disadvantage. , even though Fuller had only said that others complained, but not that they complained justly; rather he thought they had no case.[1] Despite this, Fuller's remark has been interpreted just as Heylyn took it: the original DNB entry on Barlow remarks that Fuller 'to some extent' endorses the complaint against him. In this exchange, Peter Heylyn also asked how it was, if Barlow had set out the conference partially, that none of the ministers at the conference, or anyone speaking for them, ever demonstrated its "partiality and falsehoods", and that Barlow's book had never been “convicted of any such crime as it stands charged with, in any one particular passage to this very day".[2]
Henry Hickman, a controversialist who wrote much in defence of non-conformity soon found an answer: the puritan ministers never put out an account of the conference in opposition to Barlow's because "it was an evil time, and the prudent might think themselves obliged to be silent". While this is a trivial point, other accounts were known, and it may be asked why these were not put forward in opposition. Hickman also related that Barlow on his deathbed did "with grief complain of the wrong he had done" to Rainolds and his colleagues, by "misreporting some of their answers, and certain passages therein contained". Rather than explain then where he had this story, Hickman promised "to give a satisfactory account to any person of ingenuity that shall desire it".[3]
As might be expected, Heylyn demanded this 'satisfactory account'.[4] Hickman’s account is convoluted, to say the least. He wrote that for the truth of the story, "M. H. did consult Mr. Sparks now with the Lord." Mr Sparks had answered through "his friend Mr. J. M.," that he remembered correctly he had heard it from "Mr H. J., a very aged Minister". Hickman also claimed that Mr Sparks, son of Dr. Sparks, had spoken "with great indignation of the abuse put upon either his Father or Dr. Reynolds" when Barlow was mentioned. He further claimed that a Mr Pierce and his friends and a Mr Wilkinson of Waddesdon could support the story.[5] The Mr Sparks "now with the Lord" is neither Thomas Sparke nor his son but another, a Noel Sparkes. This whole account is like Sir Philip Sidney's Mother Miso, who said of a story, "I will tell you now, what a good old woman told me, what an old wise man told her, what a great learned clerk told him, and gave it him in writing; and here I have it in my prayer book".[6]
Heylyn retorted that "the man himself is dead, from whom we are to take our greatest light in so dark a business", and that the whole story "may be one of those pious frauds devised by the Pamphleter ... for imposing as well upon the dead as upon the living". After the dead man, the story rests on two men known only by their initials, and "as easy to be found, and as honest folk as Nicholas Nemo, in Utopia, or Madam Charity of the Oudemnon street in Mantines, or Doctor H. H. in the Margin of the Libel which is now before us'". Further, he asked why this story "should lie concealed (like a spark raked up in ashes) five and fifty years, and then blaze out on a sudden, when it was not thought of". Finally, he said that he himself had known Thomas Sparke's sons, and "never heard the least word from either of them of any wrong done, or supposed to be done by Doctor Barlow, in drawing up the substance and abridgment of (the conference)".[7]
In 1679 William Barrett, in The Nonconformists Vindicated, repeated the story with full names for the initials.[8] It was repeated again by James Peirce in 1710,[9] answered by John Strype, in his Life of Whitgift in 1718, and again in 1720 in an anonymous answer to James Peirce.[10] The argument ended in a draw. No new arguments or information arose until the twentieth century. The objections to Barlow survived, and one might speak of a puritan, or at least non-conformist historical tradition coming from such works as Neale’s History of the Puritans.[11] The doubts survived in the main-stream received opinion as well; for Barlow has been given a luke-warm acquittal of wilful misrepresentation, at least in the absence of a more correct narrative on the other side, and his work judged to be as fair an account as could be expected from a partisan who had no sympathy for the arguments he was reporting. Even this faint praise was abandoned from 1961, when Mark Curtis championed the Harleian Account as the authentic voice of the conference. The reasons Curtis gave to substantiate his claim that The Summe and Substance is unreliable and "a skilful piece of party propaganda" almost all come from points where it differs from this Harleian Account. He claims, but does not demonstrate that "at all important points" this account is "consistent with the rest of the evidence". The obvious question is why this account should be believed.
NOTES
[1] T. Fuller, Church History of Great Britain, with notes by J. Nichols, iii vols (London: William Tegg, 1868) iii.193. P. Heylyn, Examen Historicum: Or A Discovery and Examination of the Mistakes, Falsities and Defects in Some Modern Histories. (London: for Henry Seile and Richard Royston, 1659), p. 172. Fuller, The Appeal of Injured Innocence, unto the religious learned and ingenuous reader in a controversie betwist the animadvertor, Dr. Peter Heylyn, and the author, Thomas Fuller ... (London: William Godbid, 1659), p. 97.
[2] Peter Heylyn, Examen Historicum, p. 172.
[3] H. Hickman, Patro-scholastiko-dikaiosis, or, A Justification of the Fathers and the Schoolmen Shewing that there are not Selfe-Condemned for denying the Pesivity of Sin (Oxford: Henry Hall for John Adams and Edward Forrest, 1659), p. 38, margin.
[4] Heylyn, Certamen Epistolare, Or The Letter Combate. Managed by Peter Heylyn, D.D. with 1. Mr Baxter of Kederminsiter. 2. Dr. Barnard of Grays-Inne. 3. Mr. Hickman of Mag. C. Oxon, and 4. J. H. of the City of Westminster Esq; With 5. An appendix to the same, in answer to some passages in Mr Fuller's late appeal. (London, J. M. for H. Twyford et al, 1659), p. 122.
[5] H. Hickman, A Review of the Certamen Epistolare betwixt Peter Heylyn D.D. and Hen. Hickman B.D. (London: for John Adams 1659) [August 31], p. 28.
[6] Philip Sidney, The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia, Written by Sir Philip Sidney Knight. Now since the first edition augmented and ended (London : Printed [by John Windet] for William Ponsonbie,1593). pp 80, 81.
[7] Peter Heylyn, Historia Quinqu-articularis (By E.C. for Thomas Johnson, 1660) Qqq2. Heylyn made a more general defence of Barlow in Aerius Redivivvs, or The History of the Puritans ... from the Year 1536 to the Year 1647 (London: Robert Battersby for Christopher Wilkinson and Thomas Archer), 2nd edition, 1672), p. 369.
[8] William Barrett, The Nonconformists Vindicated From the Abuses Put upon them by Mr. Durel and Mr. Scrivener ... (London: for Thomas Parkhurst, 1679) p. 180.
[9] J. Pierce, Vindiciae fratrum dissentientium in Anglia adversus V.C. Gulielimi Nicholsii STP Defensionem Ecclesiae Anglicanae. (London: T. Ilive, 1710), p. 58.
[10] [Grey, Zachary,] Vindication of the Church of England, In Answer to Mr. Peirce's Vindication of the Dissenters ... By A Presbyter of the Church of England (London, to be sold by John Wyat, 1720), p. 111.
[11] Neal, Daniel. History of the Puritans, or Protestant Nonconformists, from the Reformation in 1517 to the Revolution in 1688 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1855)
[2] Peter Heylyn, Examen Historicum, p. 172.
[3] H. Hickman, Patro-scholastiko-dikaiosis, or, A Justification of the Fathers and the Schoolmen Shewing that there are not Selfe-Condemned for denying the Pesivity of Sin (Oxford: Henry Hall for John Adams and Edward Forrest, 1659), p. 38, margin.
[4] Heylyn, Certamen Epistolare, Or The Letter Combate. Managed by Peter Heylyn, D.D. with 1. Mr Baxter of Kederminsiter. 2. Dr. Barnard of Grays-Inne. 3. Mr. Hickman of Mag. C. Oxon, and 4. J. H. of the City of Westminster Esq; With 5. An appendix to the same, in answer to some passages in Mr Fuller's late appeal. (London, J. M. for H. Twyford et al, 1659), p. 122.
[5] H. Hickman, A Review of the Certamen Epistolare betwixt Peter Heylyn D.D. and Hen. Hickman B.D. (London: for John Adams 1659) [August 31], p. 28.
[6] Philip Sidney, The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia, Written by Sir Philip Sidney Knight. Now since the first edition augmented and ended (London : Printed [by John Windet] for William Ponsonbie,1593). pp 80, 81.
[7] Peter Heylyn, Historia Quinqu-articularis (By E.C. for Thomas Johnson, 1660) Qqq2. Heylyn made a more general defence of Barlow in Aerius Redivivvs, or The History of the Puritans ... from the Year 1536 to the Year 1647 (London: Robert Battersby for Christopher Wilkinson and Thomas Archer), 2nd edition, 1672), p. 369.
[8] William Barrett, The Nonconformists Vindicated From the Abuses Put upon them by Mr. Durel and Mr. Scrivener ... (London: for Thomas Parkhurst, 1679) p. 180.
[9] J. Pierce, Vindiciae fratrum dissentientium in Anglia adversus V.C. Gulielimi Nicholsii STP Defensionem Ecclesiae Anglicanae. (London: T. Ilive, 1710), p. 58.
[10] [Grey, Zachary,] Vindication of the Church of England, In Answer to Mr. Peirce's Vindication of the Dissenters ... By A Presbyter of the Church of England (London, to be sold by John Wyat, 1720), p. 111.
[11] Neal, Daniel. History of the Puritans, or Protestant Nonconformists, from the Reformation in 1517 to the Revolution in 1688 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1855)
No comments:
Post a Comment