Navigation – Plan du site

The Act of Toleration, Household Worship and Dissenting Piety: Oliver Heywood’s A Family Altar

Acte de tolérance, culte domestique et piété dissidente: A Family Altar d'Oliver Heywood
William Sheils

Résumés

Cet article examine les ouvrages publiés d’Oliver Heywood ayant trait au culte familial. Composé après l’Acte de Tolérance, son ouvrage A Family Altar se concentre sur les objectifs familiaux de la prière et du culte non-conformistes, par opposition à leurs usages antérieurs à 1689, lorsque le culte familial servait souvent de forum pour le culte public des congrégations, puisque les offices non-conformistes étaient alors interdits par les autorités, et que les ministres de la Parole, comme Heywood, étaient emprisonnés. Cet article examine ainsi la frontière mouvante entre le public et le domestique, dans la culture non-conformiste, entre 1660 et 1710 environ, et tout particulièrement l’impact de l’Acte de Tolérance. Bien qu’Heywood ait pu disposer de lieux publics (une chapelle, une école) pour exercer son ministère, il n’eut de cesse de souligner l’importance du culte familial pour la vie communautaire – à côté de la prière solitaire et du culte à la chapelle – culte qu’il considérait comme une contribution essentielle à la vie de la nation. Comme Heywood le montre dans son ouvrage, l’Acte de Tolérance eut pour effet d’infléchir le culte familial vers la construction du futur de l’Église à travers l’éducation de la jeune génération, là où, précédemment, ce culte se concentrait pour l’essentiel sur le présent de la vie communautaire.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 Samuel S. Thomas, Creating Communities in Restoration England: Parish Congregations in Oliver Heywo (...)
  • 2 There are several biographies of Heywood by his fellow nonconformists, based on his own autobiograp (...)

1The ministerial career of the Presbyterian divine Oliver Heywood spanned the years from 1650, when as a young man he accepted the call of the congregation at Coley chapel in Halifax, West Yorkshire, until his death there in 1702, a patriarchal figure respected by fellow ministers and congregations across the north of England.1 His life has been subsequently deployed by historians as an exemplary study of the pastoral tradition within Old Dissent at a time of shifting and fraught relations between that tradition, deriving as it did from Puritanism, and the Established Church.2 Heywood stood at the centre of a ministerial and spiritual cousinage extending throughout the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire for over half a century, maintaining a roving ministry throughout the area and serving his congregation at Coley and North Owram both in times of persecution and during the first decade following the Act of Toleration.

  • 3 These are collected in R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., where the early lives are published in (...)
  • 4 Heart Treasure, an essay comprising the substance of a course of sermons preached at Coley, dedicat (...)
  • 5 Ibid., p. xxvi-xxvii.
  • 6 For a wider discussion of print and dissent see N. H. Keeble, The Literary Culture of Nonconformity (...)
  • 7 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 1-282, and R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit. III, p. (...)

2Heywood’s reputation as a powerful preacher emerged early among his followers, and was consolidated by a number of publications between 1667 and his death:3 the earliest of these, Heart Treasure and the famous Closet Prayer focussed, as their titles imply, on the nature of prayer; how it was the foundation of Christian living generally and, more personally, how it formed the continual basis of Heywood’s own ministry. The first of these texts was Heywood’s earliest venture into print and derived from a course of sermons which he preached at Coley. It was dedicated to his congregation there, his “very loving and dearly beloved friends and neighbours the inhabitants of Coley, and the places adjacent”.4 Clearly this was an essay designed for a specific audience but one with general application, and Heywood gave an account of its gestation. Having heard a godly minister preach on the same text, “A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things”, Heywood addressed the text in a series of sermons “with which some were so affected, that several of them entreated me to give them copies, thereof which I set myself to”, but the project grew in size and his supporters offered to bear the cost of publication, “a sudden and, to me, a strange notion, for I had never yet judged any labours of mine to be of so much worth as to be expressed in the public view”. Heywood prayed and sent the text to “some reverend Ministers” to be ruled by their judgement and advice. Support was forthcoming from “four or five eminent men in these two counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire” and the text published.5 Heywood therefore situates this text within a collective ministerial tradition, locating its origin in the sermon of a fellow minister and its ultimate textual form bearing the authority of some of his more senior colleagues. Thus the wider ministry, as validation, and the whole congregation, as supporters and encouragers, were contributors to the volume.6 Heywood’s later publications were never so directly linked to particular sermons (except for funeral sermons) or to his specific congregation, but were more general: thus his Baptismal Bonds, published in 1687, was prefaced by an epistle “To all Christians who hope and desire to stand firm in their baptismal obligations”, and Israel’s Lamentation (1682), was dedicated to “all the mourners in Zion that wait for the Consolation of Israel”.7

  • 8 These are collected in J. Horsfall Turner (ed.), The Rev. Oliver Heywood BA, 1630-1702; His autobio (...)
  • 9 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., III, p. 214-285 contain his annual reckoning (...)

3Publication gave Heywood an audience beyond his immediate followers but, as his prefatory remarks noted above indicated, his published works were the result of Heywood’s reputation as a preacher and not the source of it. For the half century between 1650 and 1752 he conducted an unremitting ministry of preaching and pastoral care, marked by public and family fasts and by a healing ministry among the families of his congregation at home and throughout the region, which he recorded in his autobiography, journals, common place books and day books.8 Throughout his ministry, save for the last few years of his life following a serious illness in 1691, Heywood preached hundreds of sermons each year, and even in his seventies they numbered about one hundred a year. As was common among dissenting ministers, preaching was at the heart of Heywood’s self-understanding of his ministerial identity and he kept an annual record of sermons preached and in what contexts, which he recorded when writing up his “spiritual reckonings” at the beginning of each new year.9 Those sermons were preached in chapels, houses, inns and sometime in the open air, both in town and country.

  • 10 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., I, p. 350, and with some minor differences in J. Horsfall Turn (...)

4Sermons preached in addition to normal Sunday preaching10

Year

Sermons

Fasts

Thanksgivings

Miles travelled

1665

26

18

3

600

1666

60

20

3

700

1667

89

20

7

900

1668

69

18

3

900

1669

48

16

4

600

1670

53

20

8

530

1671

55

29

5

870

1672

62

28

8

728

1673

69

30

3

1070

1674

72

33

5

910

1675

48

-

-

1097

1676

67

56

12

1052

1677

60

40

8

1198

1678

64

50

4

1034

1679

77

52

7

1386

1680

91

53

8

1250

1681

105

50

9

1400

1682

100

41

12

1100

1683

103

49

7

900

1684

126

51

7

746

1685

74

8

-

70 *

1686

132

37

15

1004

1687

124

44

15

1400

1688

132

42

14

1300

1689

131

34

8

1358

1690

135

40

17

1100

1691

103

37

11

833**

1692

97

49

14

966

1693

109

35

12

841

1694

90

38

17

735

1695

70

38

5

700

1696

85

34

15

700

1697

82

40

15

700

1698

78

34

16

410***

1699

67

36

9

300

1700

45

22

3

157

1701

23

14

5

no travel****

Total

3030

1356

317

31,445

5
*in York Castle, preached in prison
** confined to home by sickness, two months
*** in addition, attended six meetings of ministers
**** also attended eight conferences

  • 11 These journeys are recorded in J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 257-60.
  • 12 Ronald A. Marchant, Puritans and the Church Courts in the Diocese of York, 1558-1640, London, Longm (...)
  • 13 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 257.
  • 14 Ibid.
  • 15 Ibid., p.258.
  • 16 See Oliver Heywood, A Narrative of the Holy Life and Happy Death of the Reverend […] John Angier, L (...)

6The character of that ministry, and its dependence on that network of ministers, teachers, gentlefolk, farmers and tradespeople who formed the dissenting communities scattered throughout West Yorkshire and Lancashire and provided hospitality, sustenance and, in the early years, physical protection to their clergy, can be best understood by following Heywood through a busy but typical six months in the latter half of 1668, soon after he had first committed his words to print.11 He began in the first week of July at Knaresborough, where he stayed, uncharacteristically, at an inn rather than a private house, and from where he made a journey to Ripon before returning to Knaresborough. There on the Sabbath he and his brother preached at a house near the spa before moving on to Mr Cholmley’s at Bream, where he also preached, and then on to a private occasion, the dedication of the house of Robert Hilton, at Leeds. On this occasion Heywood and his wife lodged with the aged Elkanah Wales who, as curate of Pudsey, had served as secretary to the puritan Halifax exercise in the 1610s.12 Heywood then preached at another house in Leeds before making private visits to Lady Hoyle and to Mistress Riddlesden, a former member of his congregation now living in Wakefield. He then returned to North Owram, remaining there a month and receiving other ministers for the conduct of fasts and services. On 9 August, he preached at a public fast at Pudsey “before a multitude of people out of all parts, the gentleman of the place, Mr Milner, invited me to preach, entertained me, and I returned home safely on Monday, blessed be God”.13 The importance to Heywood’s ministry of support from the households of the more substantial dissenters in these years of establishment hostility is clear and received further confirmation when, nine days later, he returned to Wakefield, staying at Flamsill Hall, the home of Lady Hoyle. From there he went to York where he visited “many friends”, preaching “3 times at 3 severall places in the city” on the Sunday, as well as on the following evening.14 Heywood returned home by Leeds and Bramley, preaching in both places, and on the last Sunday of August, he preached all day before a “mighty congregation” at Idle chapel near Leeds.15 During the first half of September he remained at Coley, leaving only for the funeral of Mistress Riddlesden, before setting out on the 15th for Lancashire and Cheshire. In the following six weeks he journeyed about on both social and spiritual occasions among his extensive Angier and Heywood cousinage at Denton, Gorton, Uckington, Chester, Tarvin and Warrington.16 His activities in these weeks were exhausting and the first week of October found him preaching every day except Tuesday, at six different venues.

  • 17 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 259.
  • 18 Patrick Collinson, “The English Conventicle”, in William Sheils & Diana Wood (eds), Voluntary Relig (...)

7The visits which Heywood made on this journey comprised a mixture of public occasions, helping in the “public work” at Denton and at a “great meeting” at Chester, and private events, such as that at Little Bolton for his cousin John Godwin, who was “sensible of his miscarriages, oh what a good day it was”.17 The distinction which early puritans observed between the public and the private has attracted the attention of historians, and Patrick Collinson has reminded us of its importance to the godly of the seventeenth-century, but the distinction was fluid, both in practice and in description. Such meetings, often called conventicles by contemporaries, were made illegal by ecclesiastical authority, thus “private” often served as a descriptive cover for that illegality, but not always.18 In the 1660s the question of legality remained, but we can be confident that the private meetings recorded by Heywood usually had the character of family or household worship with a minister present, the small and exclusive attendance owing as much to kinship and social relationship as to spiritual exclusivity, though the two were never entirely separate. When more “public” ministerial functions were performed, as at Denton noted above, they were usually recorded by him.

  • 19 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 259.

8At the end of October Heywood returned home and on 3 November, in company with two fellow ministers, conducted a fast at the house of Lady Rhodes. The following Sunday he addressed a great assembly in his own home and on Wednesday renewed that “solemn duty of conference”.19 A short series of sermons at Farsley, Bramley and Kirkstall ended on 19 November, and the five weeks that followed were given over by Heywood to his studies, punctuated only by the occasional private fast in the house of one or other of his congregation. The final week of 1668 saw him on the road again, preaching.

  • 20 Ibid. p. 258.
  • 21 Ibid. p. 259.

9As is apparent, the homes of these people often collapsed the distinction between the public and the domestic; in addition to family gatherings such as the private fast held at the home of Margaret Hodgson on July 31, they acted as venues for more public occasions, as at Chester in late September, where he preached at the house of his cousin Mr Bullen in the morning of Wednesday 30 September and in the evening at Mr Greg’s, “where we had a great meeting”.20 Occasionally, these houses even served as a chapel for a day or two, providing a venue for public preaching and the administration of the Lord’s Supper. During those six months, in addition to his normal work in his own chapel, Heywood preached 50 sermons, conducted six public fasts, where he presumably also preached, attended four private fasts and, on 11 November, a conference of ministers at which he heard “a profitable discourse concerning the necessary question of Original Sin”.21

  • 22 P. Collinson, “English Conventicle”, art. cit., p. 223-260; John Spurr, English Puritanism 1603-168 (...)
  • 23 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 283-418.
  • 24 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., IV, p. 133, 136, 137.
  • 25 W. Sheils, “Oliver Heywood”, art. cit., last accessed 26 Feb. 2018.
  • 26 Michael R. Watts, The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution, Oxford, Oxford Uni (...)
  • 27 Most recently discussed in Ralph Stevens, Protestant Pluralism: the Reception of the Toleration Act (...)
  • 28 Oliver Heywood, A Family Altar erected to the honour of the eternal God, or, a solemn essay to prom (...)
  • 29 Ibid., sig A5 r-v.
  • 30 For Howe, see David P. Field, “Howe, John (1630-1705)”, Oxford DNB, op. cit., accessed 15 January 2 (...)

10The shifting boundary between the public and the private was characteristic of dissent in the years before the Act of Toleration of 1689, as it was of Puritanism in the early part of the century,22 but the Act provided a stimulus to probe that boundary more fully. Heywood, by now a senior figure in the northern dissenting community, undertook this in his A Family Altar, published in 1693.23 At the passing of the Act, Heywood recorded his thanks both for its passing and for William III’s continuing success in his annual review, counting it as one of his greatest providences; he expressed great optimism for the future of godly religion, now no longer under legal restrictions.24 He and his congregation had already taken advantage of the provisions in the Act; a chapel was erected at North Owram in 1688, soon to be followed by a school,25 but the new dispensation was not without its drawbacks. For a man like Heywood, whose ministry was formed in time of persecution, the former churchmanship, whereby the minister brought the word to the people in their homes and gathering places was gradually replaced by a more institutional structure in which the congregation resorted to the minister and chapel for public worship. This alteration in modes of worship, and the accompanying change in formal relations between minister and congregation did not happen overnight, but the optimism of 1689 soon gave way to a more pessimistic outlook. Disputes between the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists in the early 1690s led to a breakdown of the “Happy Union” of 1691 and to a loss of morale among the dissenting community.26 This was not confined to Heywood or to the dissenting community, but was shared by evangelical churchmen across the denominations, leading to the establishment of local Societies for the Reformation of Manners in London and many provincial towns in the years after 1691.27 This was the context which prompted the publication of Heywood’s text, as he made clear in his preface: “There is a general complaint of the great decay of Godliness, and Inundation of Prophanessess; and not without cause. I know of no better Remedy than Domestic Piety”.28 This view was shared by his fellow Presbyterian ministers and friends John Howe and John Starkey, who wrote a commendatory letter to accompany Heywood’s text.29 Howe, like Heywood, was a much-published elder statesman of the Presbyterian movement, whose career had been based in London and who was a friend and collaborator of Richard Baxter.30

11A Family Altar was prefaced by an epistle to the Christian Reader, and especially to those “Householders Professing Religion”. In his epistle, Heywood wrote

  • 31 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 285.

I know not how a minister can better employ his time, and studies, and pen better [...] than in pressing upon householders a care of the souls under their care. This hath a direct tendency to PUBLIC reformation: religion begins in individuals, and passeth on to relatives, and lesser spheres of relationship make up greater, churches and commonwealths consist of families [...] In vain do you complain of magistrates and ministers, while you that are householders are unfaithful in your trust.31

  • 32 Ibid., p. 305, 307.
  • 33 Ibid., p. 308.
  • 34 Keith Wrightson, Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain, 1470-1750, Harmondswo (...)

12The altar Heywood referred to was, of course, not a physical object but consisted in “all the worship of God to be performed in families”, and it was to be clearly distinguished from “public, and also secret personal altars”.32 These distinctions were important, family worship was separate not only from the national but also the local worshipping congregation, at which ministerial presence was required, but it was also a shared worship, distinct from that personal encounter with God which occupied much of dissenting life-writing experience. How to conduct those personal encounters had been addressed by Heywood in his widely commended Closet Prayer, published a quarter of a century earlier, and his personal papers show that his personal relationship with God remained at the centre of his religion throughout his life. But those writings also reveal that Heywood’s piety was also essentially social, with constant references to his congregation, fellow ministers, and the wider dissenting community, which he regarded as a spiritual kinship or family. In his text he noted the varying uses of the word “family”, suggesting that sometimes the word signified a whole nation, but he chose to work with what he called a common definition “in this house are such as are most ordinarily and familiarly conversant together, that work, eat, drink, and sleep under one roof”:33 a definition common to early modern experience, especially among the middling sort, and one which encompassed a unit wider that a kin group, but denoting one which shared a common socio-economic and, in Heywood’s view, ideally a common religious purpose.34

  • 35 Patrick Collinson, “The Cohabitation of the Faithful with the Unfaithful”, in Ole Peter Grell, Jona (...)
  • 36 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 330.

13Heywood then embarked on a section on the justification for this family altar, which was generally uncontentious, but he did address the question of the ungodly, those prayerless and wicked household members, and their potential effect on the practice and efficacy of domestic piety, and how they were to be treated. This had been a vexed question in puritan and dissenting circles from the beginning of the seventeenth century,35 but in Heywood’s case inclusion rather than exclusion was considered the best course. In recommending this course, he drew on an analogy from public worship to stress the efficacy for individuals of worship in wider public contexts in which the ungodly or less godly may also have been present: “What think you of poor ministers and prayers in mixed congregations? Certainly the presence of unworthy persons prejudiceth not the reception of sincere worshippers”.36

  • 37 Ibid., p. 334.
  • 38 W. Sheils, “Oliver Heywood”, art. cit., last accessed 26 Feb. 2019.
  • 39 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 362.
  • 40 See Andrew Cambers, Godly Reading: Print, Manuscript and Puritanism in England, 1580-1720, Cambridg (...)
  • 41 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 374-390.

14Heywood then discussed the relationship between domestic worship and public prayer, arguing that public prayer of itself, though necessary, was not sufficient to create godliness or to overcome all those enemies of the kingdom of God in the world noted in scripture; the mockers, the hypocrites and the timid; but he made it clear that separation was not the answer, with a warning about what he called over preciseness in the attitude of the godly to the rest of society.37 What would bridge that defect in the public ordinances was family worship and, recalling the harassment which dissenters had recently been subject to, and reflecting on his own well-recorded ministerial experience which had included a period of imprisonment for most of 1684,38 Heywood concluded that “when public persecution breaks up church assemblies, house worship will maintain religion in the world”.39 Family worship, which he had witnessed at first hand throughout his ministry, was crucial to the maintenance of religion, but it had to be conducted alongside both more public and more personal devotional and social frameworks. This was underlined in the conditions which Heywood set out to ensure such prayer would have a fruitful outcome. First and foremost it had to be built on and attentive to powerful ministry in the public chapels, and it was to be nourished and sustained by the frequenting of the society of Christian people in the neighbourhood and congregation (a constant refrain throughout the text), secondly, and possibly also collectively, it was dependent upon diligent study of the scripture, and especially of the Lord’s Prayer, often read communally within the family or household.40 Finally, for the householders themselves, Heywood returned to the theme of his early work on Closet Prayer, by stressing the necessity of regular prayerful converse with God.41 The family altar, or household worship, was therefore the arch which fortified those other pillars of the godly nation, public worship and personal devotion.

  • 42 Ibid., p. 370-372.
  • 43 See for example his record of the “returns of prayer” for 1682, J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver (...)

15Practical suggestions for ensuring the success of family worship were given both generally and specifically. In general the usual tropes about the importance of choosing wives, servants and other household members carefully were run through.42 This was especially important as parenthood was a responsibility with uncertain outcomes even when all care was taken, a theme which recurs in Heywood’s accounts of many of the pastoral and healing visits recorded by him in his diaries and event books, in which he recounted the providential outcomes for those who accepted God’s grace, as well as the fates of those who failed to do so, even when the sons of godly parents. Heywood well knew that it was the responsibility of parents to raise their children in God’s ways, but also knew that, in his phrase, “children are given” and their needs and characters were various.43

  • 44 Discussed in Ian Green, “Varieties of Domestic Devotion in Early Modern English Protestantism”, in (...)

16Having set out these general and unexceptional suggestions, Heywood then turned to what can best be described as the “How to” part of the book, covering the conduct and form of family worship, its rules, and the best context for its practice. Here again Heywood’s recommendations were not novel, and much of what he advocated was reflected in the practice within the household of his fellow dissenting minister, Philip Henry, as recorded by Philip’s son, Matthew.44

  • 45 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 392, 396.
  • 46 Ibid., p. 396, 411.
  • 47 Ibid., p. 396, 407.
  • 48 Ibid., p. 404.
  • 49 Alec Ryrie, Being Protestant in Reformation Britain, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 171 (...)

17As to conduct, Heywood suggested that it should begin with a call for God’s help by the master or mistress of the house or, if they were unable to undertake this, then a psalm might be substituted to focus the minds of the worshippers; once engaged upon, worship should be short and serious, not tedious.45 As to the use of set forms of prayer, they were “not absolutely unlawful”, but heads of household were admonished “not to neglect the gifts of the spirit”. These gifts, however, were the result of study and meditation, and worship was to be led in a serious, audible voice, but not in clamorous or hectoring tones. Family worship was to be a sober opportunity to reflect on God’s words and the day’s events, not an enthusiastic embracing of special providences. In order to ensure this the practice of what he termed “holy conversation” both within the family and with neighbours was to be the norm, so that worship arose naturally from that context and did not take on the character of a “formal course” set apart from the household’s usual tone.46 As to the times for prayer, Heywood, having dismissed the formal practices of the Moslems and the Jews, recommended morning and evening prayer at set times known to all the household; “it is a proper time for duty morning and evening, when the family come together to their stated meals”. In the evening this was best attended to before supper “when your spirits are more brisk and lively” for “it will not be so seasonable to go down upon your knees, when you are fitter to lie down in your beds”.47 It was a defining characteristic of the Christian household that it organised its daily life around family worship, and not the other way round: meeting for worship before mealtimes was advised, but the two events, prayer and dining, should be kept firmly distinct. Although God should always be invoked at meals, this was not enough in itself to fulfil the Christian’s duty, and posture too marked that distinction. Heywood enjoined kneeling at family worship: “As for sitting in prayer, it is an unbecoming, lazy position” only allowable to the weak and sickly.48 Despite controversies about kneeling at the Lord’s Supper, kneeling at prayer was uncontroversial among all shades of Protestants, except perhaps the Quakers, and was enjoined by ministers across the denominations as representative of an active sharing in Christ’s prayers in Gethsemane.49

  • 50 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 411.
  • 51 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 342; R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. ci (...)

18The distinctiveness was also marked by location, for although the family altar was not an object, it had a preferred location in those orderly houses of the dissenting middling-sort who had provided support for the ministry before the Act of Toleration. The venue varied with circumstance, and poorer families had less choice, but the ideal was that worship should take place in “some distant place from the street, to avoid disturbance from the hurries, tumults, and confusions that may distract you”.50 Perhaps recalling the disturbance to his prayers caused by the kitchen maids preparing the celebratory meal at the household fast marking the marriage in 1678 of James Halstead and his wife, and no doubt similar disturbances in other places and at other times, Heywood argued that household worship should always take place in a location set aside for that purpose, and that it should be known as such to all the household, whose members should treat it with respect. It was not, however, an exclusive place, neither an oratory nor a chapel, but it was nevertheless a clearly marked space within the household with time set aside for worship and, where possible, the location was not to be that normally used for the family meal.51

  • 52 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 402-404. Interestingly, in his recommendatory epistle, (...)
  • 53 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 404. There are many examples of aristocratic and gentry (...)
  • 54 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 51, 234; W. Sheils, “Oliver Heywood an (...)
  • 55 J. Spurr, English Puritanism, op. cit. p. 195-197; Melinda S. Zook, Protestantism, Politics, and Wo (...)
  • 56 J. Spurr, The Post-Reformation, Religion, Politics and Society in Britain, 1603-1714, London, Routl (...)
  • 57 W. Sheils, “Oliver Heywood and his Congregation”, art. cit., p. 268-270.
  • 58 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 404-406.

19Rules and boundaries were then set down in answer to a series of questions, two of which, about timing and posture, we have already addressed. More significant were questions of leadership, legitimacy, and authority. In response to consideration about the householder’s qualifications for preaching or dispensing the Lord’s Supper, Heywood was, not surprisingly, unequivocal: the householder was to work alongside the minister and not usurp the latter’s function, either in preaching or in administering the Lord’s Supper: accordingly, worship was to be largely catechetical in practice, and could not assume the functions of public worship, which should now take place in licensed chapels.52 Whether the householder could delegate authority in leading worship produced an interesting response. If available and affordable, a chaplain could be appointed to lead family worship, but this was only possible in the wealthiest of households, and these were very few. More commonly, leadership had to be delegated to other household members and, in an acknowledged, if qualified, departure from Calvin on this point, Heywood declared that it was also permissible to entrust the wife of the householder with that responsibility: “I see no reason why an Abigail or a Deborah, may not at least be the mouth of a family to God. But I am not positive herein, and leave it to the consideration of others”.53 Heywood had written warmly of the influence of his own mother in household worship during his father’s absences from the family home and, given the valued contribution of women both in numbers and in support, which he received during his ministry, his attitude should come as no real surprise.54 It was a view shared by other dissenters of his acquaintance, such as John Angier,55 but his antipathy to the local Quaker presence, which he feared had disrupted members of his congregation, may have influenced his hesitancy on this point, given the more public ministerial role which Quakers allowed to women.56 Equivocation on this matter of gender was not uncommon among dissenting ministers, and in Heywood’s case it probably reflected his own social circumstances in which, on the one hand, female support had been integral to the sustenance of his congregation whilst, on the other hand, the active ministry of Quakers in the neighbourhood and the presence of female preachers threatened the stability of his following. Perhaps significantly, Heywood’s text contains no discussion of worship in a household in which a woman was the effective head, though it is almost certain that his congregation included many households headed by widows.57 Finally, to ensure the continuity of household worship on those occasions when neither the householder nor his wife were able to lead prayers Heywood advised the employment of a suitable servant, chosen for godliness rather than by seniority, to lead worship in their absence, but here again, there is no suggestion that such a servant might be female.58

  • 59 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 411-412.

20Heywood was also conscious that not all members of his congregation found themselves employed in godly households and offered advice in a question and answer format to those placed in such unfortunate circumstances. In reply to the problem of a careless or drunken master he was unequivocal, where prayers were said then the Christian must attend despite the shortcomings of the household, but should show disapproval, though quite how this was to be done was not made clear. If reform of practice was not forthcoming, then it was the Christian’s responsibility to speak directly with the head of household and, if that failed to bring any adequate improvement then he or she should seek the advice of the minister, who might know the household and be able to prevail upon the master to bring about the desired reform.59 It was the minister’s responsibility and his authority which came into play in such circumstances, but that authority had its limitations if the head of household was not responsive to admonition. Where the Christian was employed by a “prayerless” family, then the best course of action was to try and seek alternative employment within the law; in the case of apprentices this was not a very practical suggestion, given the legal obligations they would have been under. Beyond that, all that Heywood offered was the suggestion that the servant should seek reform of the household through example. Clearly, Heywood’s responses in these difficult circumstances reflected the dominant position of the patriarchal household, and in trying to overcome spiritual defects when they occurred within the domestic context, he fell back on the wider societal advice about the importance to serious Christians of exercising care in their choice of household and of employer.

  • 60 Ian Green, Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, (...)

21Heywood’s advice about family prayer was unexceptional and reflected what we know of practice from the accounts and diaries of other dissenting could or godly ministers, but in the years following the Act of Toleration the opportunity to articulate the importance of the domestic devotional sphere and to distinguish it from both the public and the personal, or private, sphere was timely. In the new religious market place which the Act had created it was necessary for dissenters like Heywood to provide a distinctive guide to domestic worship for their congregations to compete with popular Anglican devotional aids such as those of the Yorkshire cleric and controversialist Thomas Comber, whose A companion to the temple and closet (1672) and the shorter A companion to the altar (1675), had both gone through several editions since being first published.60 The response of dissenters like Heywood, now no longer subject to the persecution which had marked their lives for a generation and more, was built on that puritan tradition of domestic piety which had sustained its earlier ministry, but which now also addressed those congregations enjoying a new freedom of worship led by a more secure and settled ministry based around a chapel. Household devotion not only had a role in maintaining the church, but in cooperation with public worship it also contributed to the reformation of the nation. It was a distinctive and essential part of dissenting life, but one which was integrated into a wider devotional culture which was also to be found among congregations in chapel and among individuals in the study or bedside. All three devotional contexts were necessary supports to each other.

22Heywood’s declared intention was to provide encouragement and advice “to those that are heads and governors of families to take up Joshua’s resolution: that whatever others do, they and their houses will serve the Lord in daily, fruitful, fervent prayer”, an activity which was “both work and wages: a service that carries its reward with it (reward not of debt but of graces), it brings blessings upon a family.” And not only upon the family, but on the wider community and on the nation as a whole. Heywood’s treatise was

  • 61 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 289.

A word in season, for it is a common complaint and that too, by many who are not a little guilty of it themselves, that the power of godliness, the life of practical religion, is at this day under a lamentable decay: and amongst the many causes of this decay, there is scarcely any that hath been more perniciously influential thereunto, than the neglect of family worship of God.61

23It was a theme he articulated on a number of occasions in the 1690s; in two sermons preached at Pontefract in February 1693 he stressed the point:

  • 62 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., V, p. 465.

Our holiness must appear not only in God’s house, but also in our own [...] Much of the power of God lies within doors, [...] the noise and stir we make about religion amongst others will signify little, if those that are with us every day, and have opportunity to know us best, speak little of our holiness.62

24The timing was perhaps significant in the context of both the sermons and the publication of A Family Altar.

  • 63 W. Sheils, “Oliver Heywood”, art. cit., last accessed, 20 August 2017.
  • 64 S. S. Thomas, op. cit., p. 153; J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., III, p. 254- (...)
  • 65 W. E. Tate, “A Puritan Yorkshireman and the Yorkshire Schools”, University of Leeds Review 8 (1962- (...)

25The Toleration Act transformed the life of the congregation at North Owram as elsewhere; a new chapel had been opened in 1688 following James II’s Declaration of Indulgence, and a school was added in 1693. The opportunities brought about by the Act of Toleration were accompanied by other concerns, however, both personal and more generally. In 1691 Heywood played a leading role in introducing into Yorkshire “the happy union” between Presbyterians and Independents, preaching to a gathering of ministers of both denominations at Wakefield on 2 September, but these optimistic beginnings were followed by Heywood’s concern that the new atmosphere of toleration had permitted, in the years after 1689, a falling away from that Calvinist doctrinal orthodoxy which had formed the bedrock of his own ministry.63 In addition to these general concerns, in 1691 Heywood also suffered a near fatal attack of ague which caused him to reconsider his ministry. Although now in his sixties the years immediately following his illness saw little diminution of his preaching and travelling, but there was a refocusing of his energies in response to the changed environment, both nationally and personally.64 The school was symptomatic of that change.65

  • 66 S. S. Thomas, op. cit. p. 189; J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., IV, p. 246-24 (...)
  • 67 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., III, p. 263.
  • 68 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 501.
  • 69 Anon., Advice to an Only Child, or, Excellent Counsel to Young Persons, London, 1693, epistle to th (...)

26Among the thanksgivings which Heywood offered for his recovery in 1691 was a fast held for “near twenty young men and women”, and the young, and their spiritual formation, became an increasingly important feature of his ministry. In the 1670s and early 1680s Heywood had regularly held meetings for young members of his congregation, and for a while in the mid 1670s a small group met fortnightly at his home on Thursdays to share a meal and discuss what he termed matters of “practical divinity”. These meetings had ceased during the mid 1680s, but in November 1692, on hearing that some young men of his congregation were meeting regularly to pray, he invited them “to come to my house on Wednesday following and spend some time in prayer with me”. They duly arrived and their piety and knowledge surprised him: “I stood amazed to hear their gifts, many of them were the children of carnall parents”.66 Publication of A Family Altar in the following year, stressing as it did the responsibility of householders to instil Christian virtue in those placed in their care, can be seen as part of this shift in focus towards the young. In reviewing his ministry for 1693 Heywood wrote “Lord’s Days are the sweetest days in the week, fast days are my feast days, studying and preaching my recreation, young men’s meetings my delight”.67 He gave expression to his hopes for the young elsewhere: in another text published that same year, The Best Entail; or Dying Parents Hopes for their Surviving Children, Heywood asked his childless readers if they might consider the radical option of adopting an orphaned child; “have you no near kinsmen, or poor neighbours, to whom God hath granted a lovely offspring? Surely it would be acceptable both to God, them, and yourselves, to pick out an ingenious child, help him to learning, train him up for God, bequeath your estates, to make an experiment of him while you live”,68 and in the only text he published which was not written by him but for which he provided a preface, James Creswick’s Advice to an Only Child, or, Excellent Counsel to Young Persons, he wrote “The Design (I am sure) is high and noble, to plant Grace in young Persons, and to breed and feed a nursery of Plants of Renown, to stock the Church and World with a springing up generation in the room of old trees transplanted into better soil”.69

  • 70 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., III, p. 245; S. S. Thomas, op. cit., p. 187.
  • 71 M. G. Jones, The Charity School Movement: A Study of Eighteenth-Century English Puritanism in Actio (...)
  • 72 For post 1689 chapel worship see M. R. Watts, The Dissenters, op.cit., p. 303-315.
  • 73 For an example see Michael C. Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England: Politics (...)
  • 74 John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1975, p. 250 (...)

27It is clear that, in the years following 1689, Heywood, by now an old man conscious of his own mortality, renewed his ministry to the young. In 1689, recording his reflections on the events of that year and the lessons they brought to him, he wrote “to educate their children for god, this is the circular motion, the reciprocal acts of god and parents as our Lord Jesus said of his disciples ‘Thine they were, though gavest them me’. [...] second my education with thy blessing, that I may again present them to thee with comfort at the great day”. More practically, in the following years, he began to write sermons specifically for the younger members of his congregation and, in addition to establishing the school, he revived the practice of catechising, conducting meetings in his own house.70 These activities were not confined to Heywood at this time, and the publication of A Family Altar needs to be considered against a background of more general concern with the formation of the young among both dissenting ministers and Anglican clergy in these and the following years, resulting in a movement to provide schooling for the poor.71 Household worship had always been a defining feature of dissenting life, and in the years before toleration, a necessary one, both in sustaining the tradition and supporting the ministry. Close reciprocal relationships between leading laity and their ministers was vital when public worship was prohibited, eliding the boundary between the public and the private; household gatherings such as those recorded by Heywood in his journal for 1668 and noted above, often represented the public worship of the community. The fact of toleration shifted the boundary between the public and the private, and also perhaps that between minister and congregation, expressed as a move from a community primarily worshipping in domestic contexts to congregations organised around chapels.72 Of course, in the years after the Restoration these domestic contexts were often open to the wider dissenting community, just as the chapels of the Catholic landowners often provided mass centres for co-religionists beyond the tenantry.73 And the similarity did not stop there, for as chapel worship became the public worship of the dissenting communities after the Act of Toleration, so John Bossy has identified a similar shift occurring in the early eighteenth century within the Catholic community, in which the location of the worshipping community shifted from the country houses of the gentry to town based chapels served by resident priests as. In the case of Catholics, this shift took place without the impetus of toleration, and the gentry often provided the financial support for these new chapels, just as leading members of dissenting congregations supported their own chapels, but the congruence of the two is worth considering. Wider societal changes leading to increased urbanisation may have helped create a chapel led devotional model to replace the less formal household model of the earlier years.74

  • 75 M. R. Watts, The Dissenters, op. cit., p. 366-371; for a list of those students at the Academy set (...)
  • 76 See table above.
  • 77 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, III, ed. cit., p. 262-263.

28In this new environment it was natural that ministers would seek to reconsider the boundary between public and private worship, and the purposes of each. Legalisation of public worship and the building of chapels made ministers less dependent on their congregations, in providing opportunities to preach if not for financial support, and the emergence of dissenting academies produced in time a more distinct ministerial identity whereby ministers led their congregations from their chapel pulpits.75 Relations between minister and congregation remained strong, but after 1689 it was the congregation which resorted to the chapel for public worship, and not the minister who travelled to the homes of his followers in order to preach. The household no longer fulfilled the same public purposes that many had previously, but it remained integral to dissenting experience, albeit with a different emphasis. Household worship had always involved the future of the Church through the older generations passing on their faith to the younger ones, but in the years of persecution up to 1689 it had also been essential to sustaining both the ministry and the present state of the Church. This probably explains the richness of the record about household worship in these years, or more properly of worship conducted in a household setting, and the relative decline in the recording of such activities after 1689. This is not to say that ministers no longer engaged with household worship as before, but that the character of that worship, and its functions, had changed. Heywood devoted a long, distinguished and fruitful ministry of over half a century to preaching and giving voice to the dissenting tradition in its public gatherings, and he continued to do so throughout the 1690s when he was in his sixties. In 1690 in addition to his Sunday preaching he delivered 135 sermons, conducted forty fasts and seventeen days of thanksgiving, travelling a total of 1100 miles in the process. In 1700, when he was seventy, he had reduced his travelling but still managed to preach forty-five weekday sermons, conduct twenty-two fasts and three days of thanksgiving, as well as attending eight conferences of ministers, in addition to his Sunday duties.76 His commitment to the public ministry did not wane, but the experience of dissent in the years after 1662 showed him that it was in itself an insufficient mark of God’s church and that the household formed the essential building block of that tradition. Without domestic devotion, the public worship of dissent would lose its force and would not be passed down to the following generations. It was this understanding which inspired Heywood to publish both the Last Entail and A Family Altar in 1693. When sent to the printer publication proved problematic because of paper costs, but Heywood drew comfort from his ministry, especially among the young, and from the personal mercies shown to him, particularly in his domestic life, with “a convenient dwelling, a lovely comp-anion, hopeful sons, faithful servant [...] kind friends abroad, loving neighbours at home” all sustained by household prayer in the morning and the evening and “the reading of some good book to my family till bedtime”. Unsure if his books would be published, his summary of that year was nonetheless confident: “this I can truly say, I have been industrious and spent my time for the good of the church and the glory of my good God”. One of the glories of God and one of the most secure guarantees of their continuance within the church and nation was household worship.77

Haut de page

Notes

1 Samuel S. Thomas, Creating Communities in Restoration England: Parish Congregations in Oliver Heywood’s Halifax, Brill Studies in the History of the Christian Tradition, Leiden, 2013 is the most recent study; see also William Sheils, “Heywood, Oliver (bap. 1630, d. 1702), clergyman and ejected minister”, Oxford DNB, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, online edn., retrieved 26 Feb. 2019, from https://doi.org//10.1093/ref:odnb/13186.

2 There are several biographies of Heywood by his fellow nonconformists, based on his own autobiographical writings, see Richard Slate (ed.), The Whole Works of the Reverend Oliver Heywood, London, John Vint, 1826, 5 volumes. In addition to his published works, volume I prints some of the early lives of Heywood; and for a study which locates him within a broader cultural tradition, see Wallace Notestein Four Worthies, London, Jonathan Cape, 1956, p. 211-243.

3 These are collected in R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., where the early lives are published in volume I, and volume V contains some hitherto unpublished sermons. References to Heywood’s works are made to the Slate edition.

4 Heart Treasure, an essay comprising the substance of a course of sermons preached at Coley, dedicatory epistle (R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., II, p. 1-282).

5 Ibid., p. xxvi-xxvii.

6 For a wider discussion of print and dissent see N. H. Keeble, The Literary Culture of Nonconformity in later seventeenth-century England, Leicester, Leicester University Press, 1991, esp. p. 83-92, 143-150.

7 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 1-282, and R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit. III, p. 363-494 respectively, epistles dedicatory.

8 These are collected in J. Horsfall Turner (ed.), The Rev. Oliver Heywood BA, 1630-1702; His autobiography, Diaries, Anecdote and Event Books, Brighouse, 1881-5, 4 volumes.

9 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., III, p. 214-285 contain his annual reckonings for the period 1682-1701, with record of his preaching.

10 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., I, p. 350, and with some minor differences in J. Horsfall Turner, ed. cit., III, p. 227-228.

11 These journeys are recorded in J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 257-60.

12 Ronald A. Marchant, Puritans and the Church Courts in the Diocese of York, 1558-1640, London, Longman, 1963, p. 289; A. G. Matthews (ed.), Calamy Revised, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1934, p. 506.

13 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 257.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid., p.258.

16 See Oliver Heywood, A Narrative of the Holy Life and Happy Death of the Reverend […] John Angier, London, 1683.

17 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 259.

18 Patrick Collinson, “The English Conventicle”, in William Sheils & Diana Wood (eds), Voluntary Religion, Studies in Church History 23, Oxford, 1986, p. 223-260, esp. p. 227-234.

19 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 259.

20 Ibid. p. 258.

21 Ibid. p. 259.

22 P. Collinson, “English Conventicle”, art. cit., p. 223-260; John Spurr, English Puritanism 1603-1689, London, Palgrave MacMillan, 1998, p. 133-143, 192-201.

23 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 283-418.

24 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., IV, p. 133, 136, 137.

25 W. Sheils, “Oliver Heywood”, art. cit., last accessed 26 Feb. 2018.

26 Michael R. Watts, The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978, p. 290-297.

27 Most recently discussed in Ralph Stevens, Protestant Pluralism: the Reception of the Toleration Act, 1689-1730, Woodbridge, Boydell & Brewer, 2018, p. 53-76.

28 Oliver Heywood, A Family Altar erected to the honour of the eternal God, or, a solemn essay to promote the worship of God in private houses, London, 1693, sig. 2r.

29 Ibid., sig A5 r-v.

30 For Howe, see David P. Field, “Howe, John (1630-1705)”, Oxford DNB, op. cit., accessed 15 January 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/13596

31 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 285.

32 Ibid., p. 305, 307.

33 Ibid., p. 308.

34 Keith Wrightson, Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain, 1470-1750, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 2002, p. 30-50, 64-68.

35 Patrick Collinson, “The Cohabitation of the Faithful with the Unfaithful”, in Ole Peter Grell, Jonathan Israel and Nicholas Tyacke (eds), From Persecution to Toleration: The Glorious Revolution and Religion in England, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991, p. 51-76; Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500-1700, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2006, p. 207-227.

36 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 330.

37 Ibid., p. 334.

38 W. Sheils, “Oliver Heywood”, art. cit., last accessed 26 Feb. 2019.

39 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 362.

40 See Andrew Cambers, Godly Reading: Print, Manuscript and Puritanism in England, 1580-1720, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 82-110 for discussion of this practice.

41 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 374-390.

42 Ibid., p. 370-372.

43 See for example his record of the “returns of prayer” for 1682, J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., IV, p. 64-86, and elsewhere throughout his diaries.

44 Discussed in Ian Green, “Varieties of Domestic Devotion in Early Modern English Protestantism”, in Jessica Martin and Alec Ryrie (eds), Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern England, Farnham Ashgate, 2012, p. 11-13.

45 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 392, 396.

46 Ibid., p. 396, 411.

47 Ibid., p. 396, 407.

48 Ibid., p. 404.

49 Alec Ryrie, Being Protestant in Reformation Britain, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 171-178.

50 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 411.

51 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 342; R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 410.

52 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 402-404. Interestingly, in his recommendatory epistle, Heywood describes the head of the household as “a prophet, priest and ruler in the family”, and describes the household as “a little church of God”, but he does not follow the logic of these descriptions at this point, adopting the more traditional distinction in the text (R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 289).

53 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 404. There are many examples of aristocratic and gentry women leading domestic worship, as there are of clerical wives; Ian Green, “Varieties of Domestic Devotion in Early Modern English Protestantism”, art. cit., p. 13, 18; Patricia Crawford, Women and Religion in England, 1500-1700, London, Routledge, 1993, p. 86-92; Kenneth Charlton, Women, Religion and Education in Early Modern England, London, Routledge, 1999, p. 204-220.

54 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., I, p. 51, 234; W. Sheils, “Oliver Heywood and his Congregation”, in W. Sheils and Wood (eds), op. cit, p. 261-278.

55 J. Spurr, English Puritanism, op. cit. p. 195-197; Melinda S. Zook, Protestantism, Politics, and Women in Britain, 1660-1714, London, Palgrave MacMillan, 2013, p. 16-58.

56 J. Spurr, The Post-Reformation, Religion, Politics and Society in Britain, 1603-1714, London, Routledge, 2006, p. 321; Adrian Davies, The Quakers in English Society, 1655-1725, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 118-122.

57 W. Sheils, “Oliver Heywood and his Congregation”, art. cit., p. 268-270.

58 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 404-406.

59 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 411-412.

60 Ian Green, Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 249, 609; see also Andrew M. Coleby, “Comber, Thomas (1645–1699), dean of Durham and liturgist”, Oxford DNB, op. cit., accessed 26 Feb., https//doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/6024.

61 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 289.

62 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., V, p. 465.

63 W. Sheils, “Oliver Heywood”, art. cit., last accessed, 20 August 2017.

64 S. S. Thomas, op. cit., p. 153; J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., III, p. 254-281 for his activity in the 1690s, and see table above.

65 W. E. Tate, “A Puritan Yorkshireman and the Yorkshire Schools”, University of Leeds Review 8 (1962-1963), p. 130-145, esp. p. 131.

66 S. S. Thomas, op. cit. p. 189; J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., IV, p. 246-247.

67 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., III, p. 263.

68 R. Slate, The Whole Works, ed. cit., IV, p. 501.

69 Anon., Advice to an Only Child, or, Excellent Counsel to Young Persons, London, 1693, epistle to the reader, sig. A.3.

70 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., III, p. 245; S. S. Thomas, op. cit., p. 187.

71 M. G. Jones, The Charity School Movement: A Study of Eighteenth-Century English Puritanism in Action, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1938, p. 73-80.

72 For post 1689 chapel worship see M. R. Watts, The Dissenters, op.cit., p. 303-315.

73 For an example see Michael C. Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England: Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion, c.1550-1640, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 214-215, Lady Montague’s chapel at her house at Battle Abbey, Sussex, known locally as Little Rome.

74 John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1975, p. 250-277.

75 M. R. Watts, The Dissenters, op. cit., p. 366-371; for a list of those students at the Academy set up by Richard Frankland at Attercliffe and, from 1689 at Rathmell, and later taken on by John Chorlton at Manchester see J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, ed. cit., II, p. 9-16. Of the 303 educated by Frankland, 110 became ministers. M. R. Watts, op. cit. p. 342-346, discusses ministerial finance: in 1690 the Presbyterians and Congregationalists set up a Common Fund to establish chapels and assist poorer congregations.

76 See table above.

77 J. Horsfall Turner, The Rev. Oliver Heywood, III, ed. cit., p. 262-263.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

William Sheils, « The Act of Toleration, Household Worship and Dissenting Piety: Oliver Heywood’s A Family Altar », Études Épistémè [En ligne], 35 | 2019, mis en ligne le 10 juillet 2019, consulté le 16 septembre 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/episteme/4437 ; DOI : 10.4000/episteme.4437

Haut de page

Auteur

William Sheils

William Sheils is Professor Emeritus in History at the University of York (UK). He has published widely on Post-Reformation England working on topics across the denominational divide. He was the recipient of a festschrift volume in 2012, Getting Along? Religious Identities and Confessional Relations in Early Modern England (Ashgate) edited by Nadine Lewycky and Adam Morton, and was President of the Ecclesiastical History Society, 2008-2009.

Haut de page
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals