A few Presbyterians attempted to revive synodical action, and a meeting with that view at Newbury created much stir--displeasing Nonconformists, who regarded it as injudicious, and provoking Churchmen, who urged it was unjust. Convocation remained in shackles; why, then, should Presbyterian Synods be free?[493] This question was asked, in forgetfulness of the obvious difference relative to the state of voluntary churches on the one hand, and endowed churches on the other. [Sidenote: 1688–1702.] As ministers could not continue by reason of death, it became necessary to reinforce the ranks. One young student of honourable descent made his appearance in public life at this juncture. Edmund Calamy--grandson of the Divine of the same name, who had been Incumbent of Aldermanbury--after studying in Holland, where he had accumulated stores of Dutch theology, returned to his native land, and went down to Oxford, where he devoted himself to the study of the question, whether he should enter the Church, or continue his lot with Dissenters? Certainly if anybody ever gave himself to the investigation of the subject, young Edmund did--for, first, he studied the Bible; then he read several of the Fathers, with all sorts of critical helps; then he perused Pearson, on the Ignatian Epistles, as well as Monsieur Daillé and Larroque on the other side; then he betook himself to the examination of Chillingworth’s _Religion of Protestants_, which he carefully epitomized; then he attacked Hooker’s _Ecclesiastical Polity_, and went through it book by book, setting down the arguments with such remarks as they suggested; then he turned to Jeremy Taylor’s _Ductor Dubitantium_, dealing with this as he had done with the rest; and, lastly, with care he read over the Articles, Liturgy, Homilies, and Canons of the Church of England.[494] Such an amount of reading for the settlement of opinion was very well for a youth of twenty-one, and, making allowance for a bias derived from family traditions and from the ugly memories of 1662, we must credit him with candour in looking at the subject on all sides. According to his own account, his reading was chiefly in favour of Episcopacy; yet his conclusion was decidedly in favour of Nonconformity. The Nonconformity which he adopted, however, was moderate; it shrunk neither from Episcopal orders, Liturgical worship, nor the Establishment principle, but from certain things enforced by the Church of England. He tells us himself that he would have received ordination at the hands of a Bishop, “could he have found anyone that would not have demanded a subscription and engagement to conformity, and a subjection to the present ecclesiastical government.”[495] [Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] [Sidenote: 1688–1702.]