Responding to Lake's 'On Laudianism': 'the laudable rites and customes of the ancient Church'
The maximum position went further, deriving that Anglican essence not solely from the prayer book [sic], or the Thirty-nine Articles, but rather from the primitive, apostolic and now the later Catholic churches, whose practices provided the Laudians with a prism through which to read the foundation documents of the church of England, thus rendering them more compatible with their religious sensibilities and ecclesiological priorities (p.349).
The idea that invoking patristic authority somehow stood apart from - indeed, seemingly contradicted - the formularies of the Elizabethan Settlement runs entirely contrary to how the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church understood its doctrine and worship. These were not seen as standing apart from patristic precedent but, rather, as eminently faithful to patristic faith and practice. An early expression of his is found in Cranmer's A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Saviour Christ (1550):
But thanks be to the eternal God, the manner of the holy communion, which is now set forth within this realm, is agreeable with the institution of Christ, with St. Paul and the old primitive and apostolic Church ...
In 'Concerning Ceremonies', Cranmer also explicitly defended practices on the basis of their roots in the primitive Church, against critics of the Prayer Book's ceremonies:
And if they think much, that any of the old do remain, and would rather have all devised anew: then such men granting some Ceremonies convenient to be had, surely where the old may be well used, there they cannot reasonably reprove the old only for their age, without bewraying of their own folly. For in such a case they ought rather to have reverence unto them for their antiquity ...
Likewise, in 'Concerning the Service of the Church', patristic practice was presented by Cranmer as the root of the Prayer Book itself:
But these many years passed, this godly and decent order of the ancient Fathers hath been so altered, broken, and neglected ... So that here you have an Order for Prayer, and for the reading of the holy Scripture, much agreeable to the mind and purpose of the old Fathers ...
Jewel's great Apology also explicitly insisted that the reformed Church of England adhered to the patristic faith:
we do show it plainly that God's holy Gospel, the ancient bishops, and the primitive Church do make on our side, and that we have not without just cause left these men, and rather have returned to the Apostles and old Catholic fathers
And amongst the criticisms of the reformed Church of England rejected by Jewel is the allegation that ancient ceremonies have been abolished:
that we have rashly and presumptuously disannulled the old ceremonies, which have been well allowed by our fathers and forefathers many hundred years past, both by good customs, and also in ages of more purity.
As such, it was "not only those ceremonies which we are sure were delivered us from the Apostles, but some others too besides" which were retained by the Church of England.
Hooker's defence of the liturgy invoked Tertullian (LEP V.24.1) and quite openly accepted that the Church of England agreed with Rome "Where Rome keepeth that which is ancienter and better" (V.28.1). On the surplice he quoted Jerome and Chrysostom (V.29.1-3). Regarding the sign of Cross in Baptism, he quotes Cyprian (V.65.8) and invokes "the ancient Christians" (V.65.12). On the matter of festival days, he points to early Christian practice as recorded by Tertullian and Augustine (V.70.8).
As a final example of Elizabethan and Jacobean understanding of following primitive, patristic practice, we can turn to Canon XXX, of the 1604 Canons, 'The lawful Use of the Cross in Baptism, explained':
And this Use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church, as well by the Greeks as the Latins, with one Consent and great Applause ... the Church of England hath retained still the Sign of it in Baptism: following therein the Primitive and Apostolical Churches.
It is overwhelmingly obvious that Conformist thought in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church did not in any sense regard the Church of England's formularies as standing apart from patristic faith and practice. Rather, the formularies were explicitly understood to embody patristic faith and practice. The ceremonies of the Prayer Book were also defended on the grounds of their antiquity. This was not, as Lake suggests, a 'maximalist' Laudian position, seeking a rationale for ceremonies apart from the Prayer Book: this was well-established Elizabethan and Jacobean Conformist discourse.
What makes Lake's claims even more unconvincing is that he uses the Laudian Christopher Dow's 1637 work, Innovations unjustly charged upon the present church and state, as an example of the 'maximalist' position. Dow lists the ceremonies that he is defending: standing at Gloria Patri and for the reading of the Gospel; bowing at the name of Jesus; use of the term 'altar' and the standing of the altar at the east wall; communicants going up to the altar to receive the Sacrament; altar rails; bowing to the altar; turning to the east; and reading the Second Service (i.e. the Ante-Communion) at the altar.
What is to be said about these ceremonies? The Canons of 1604 required bowing at the name of Jesus, while the rubrics clearly expected the Ante-Communion to be said at the Holy Table. Standing for the Gloria Patri and Gospel, while not required by the rubrics of 1559, can hardly be deemed contrary to the Prayer Book (in which no direction is given to sit at these points). The use of the term 'altar' featured heavily in Bishop Buckeridge's sermon at Lancelot Andrewes' 1626 funeral and had been defended by John Donne, the epitome of Jacobean Conformity, who referred to "reverend names of priest, and altar, and sacrifice"; use of the term, in other words, was hardly a Laudian innovation. Rails were to be found in some cathedrals and parish churches before Laud, as were the practices of bowing to the altar and praying facing east.
Even those ceremonies not required by the Prayer Book and Canons, therefore, had pre-Laudian precedent in the reformed Church of England and were, in some places, established custom, as Dow emphasised:
they ... were never wholly out of use in this Church of ours, but observed as religious customes derived from the ancient Church of Christ, and that not onely in Cathedrals and the Royall Chappell, (though that might sufficiently cleare them from these foule imputations) but in many Parochiall Churches in this Kingdome; and generally, by all, that to their knowledge, have added zeale and conscience by their practise to maintaine the honour and reputation of the pious and laudable rites and customes of the ancient Church: And how these things can be more popish, superstitious, and idolatrous now, then heretofore, I cannot see.
Note how Dow makes his argument. It is not the case that he is invoking patristic precedent in and of itself. He is, rather, declaring that such practices of the primitive church have been customary in parts of the Church of England since the Reformation. The absence of reference to them in the Prayer Book "doth not hinder the retaining of any laudable, and pious customes then, and of a long time before, in use in the Church, which are no way contrary to the forme, or rites prescribed in the booke of Common prayer". What this self-evidently is not, is, as Lake suggests, a case of "a whole range of precedents and practices, both patristic and Catholic [sic], made available for Laudian appropriation" (p.350). The practices defended by Dow were known within the Elizabethan Settlement. Indeed, this is a crucial part of Dow's case, either misunderstood or simply overlooked by Lake.
Lake also oddly does not acknowledge that Dow makes no excessive claims that worship in the parishes must reflect the practice of cathedrals and the Chapel Royal. Indeed, he is explicit in denying that this must be so:
for who knowes not, that Cathedrals have ever had certaine rites and ceremonies, vestments, and other ornaments, which have not beene used in Parochials? And that to reduce all Parochiall Churches to their modell, is neither necessary nor convenient, nor almost possible to be done.
It is difficult not to think that this is not referenced by Lake as it rather undermines the notion of Dow as a 'maximalist' Laudian.
To condemn the practices found in cathedrals and the Chapel Royal, however, was, Dow states, to condemn the bishops in whose cathedrals they had been customary, and, what is more, the Supreme Governors, in whose Chapel Royal the same practices were to be found:
It is a good argument to say; Cathedrals are so and so; or use such and such rites and ceremonies, and ever since the beginning of the reformation have used them. Therefore those rites and Ceremonies are no noveltyes or innovations in the Church of England. Yea, and it may passe for a good Argument to cleare those Ceremonies (which he hath so deepely charged) from superstition and idolatrie, except with such as are so past sense and shame as to lay the approbation, and allowance of those grosse sinnes to this Church, yea and condemne not the Prelates onely, but these Soveraign Princes who have not onely not purged, but been spectators and actors in the same.
In defending these practices, found within the Elizabethan Settlement, Dow also invoked the authority of custom:
Custome [is] not contrary to Law, or good reason hath ever obteined the force of a law: and in things of this nature, the pious customes of Gods people (as Saint Aug speakes) are to be held for lawes. And being so, must (or at least may lawfully) be observed till some law expressely cry them downe: which I am sure the Common-prayer-book, nor any Statute yet hath done.
For Lake, this is merely a convenient means for Laudians to justify practices "devoid of positive warrant in the existing liturgy" (p.349). What this fails to recognise is that the Laudian appeal to the authority of custom was no innovation - it was distinctly Hookerian:
that of things once received and confirmed by use, long usage is a law sufficient ... the authority of custom is great (LEP II.5.7).
What Lake identifies as a supposedly 'maximalist' Laudian position, therefore, is actually a continuation of Conformist appeal to patristic practice and the authority of custom. It was invoked by Dow not to promote customs alien to the Church of England but, rather, to defend customs which were found within the Elizabethan Settlement, a settlement which itself maintained that ceremonies were to be reverenced "for their antiquity".Underpinning this was the oft-repeated Conformist conviction that the formularies of the reformed Church of England were inherently patristic in character: the formularies and the primitive Church were not opposing but rather cohering ecclesiastical forms. Thus, "the laudable rites and customes of the ancient Church", found within the Elizabethan Settlement and defended by the Laudians, necessarily could not be opposed to the Prayer Book, the prayers and rites of which were "received from the ancient Church of Christ, and venerable for their antiquity".
(The second illustration is a detail from a c.1603 drawing of the funeral procession of Elizabeth I.)


Comments
Post a Comment