Skip to main content

"Yet necessary": Donne on the need for conformity

previous post has pointed to the continuity in the defence of conformity from Cranmer, through Hooker, to Laud.  That particular instance referred to kneeling to receive the Sacrament.  Another example of this can be found in Donne (Sermon X, on Candlemas Day), emphasising again that the Laudian understanding of conformity was no innovation but, rather, a continuation of a well-established, theologically coherent defence of the need to conform in matters of rites and ceremonies as necessary for the good and well-being of the Church.

In Donne we see the same defence of kneeling to receive the Sacrament as was evident in the works of Cranmer and Hooker, manifesting the roots of the Laudian vision of conformity and its fundamental continuity with earlier Conformist thought.

Key to the Conformist case was the rejection of the notion that the Church's life is regulated alone by positive commands in Scripture.  As Donne puts it:

Why then will such men, as in all actions of divine service, pretend to limit everything precisely to the pattern of Christ himself, to do just as he did, and no otherwise, why will they admit any other position of the body, in preaching, than sitting, since, at least for the most part, Christ did preach sitting? Or if Christ did both sit, and stand, why will they not acknowledge, that all positions of the body, that are reverent, are indifferent in themselves, in the service of God; and being so, why will they not admit that position of the body, which being indifferent in itself, is by the just command of lawful authority, made necessary to them, that is, kneeling at the sacrament.

Donne also ridiculed the suggestion that the original context for the institution of the Lord's Supper provides a pattern for the Church's administration of the Sacrament:

neither could that position of body, which they used at the table, for their civil supper, and natural refection, be properly called a sitting, for it was rather a lying, a reclining, a leaning upon a bed; and let it be exactly a sitting, and let that sitting run through all the three suppers.

Like Cranmer and Hooker, he emphasised the appropriate piety of kneeling to receive:

Much less is there in our kneeling, who, as we acknowledge, that God is present everywhere, yet otherwise present to us, when we throw ourselves down before him in devotion, and prayer in our chamber, than he is in the market, or in the street, and otherwise in the congregation, at public prayer, than at private prayer in our chamber; so we acknowledge, that he is otherwise present at the sacrament, than at any other act of Divine service.

And, finally, he explained that while gestures and ceremonies may in themselves be things indifferent, acceptance of lawful authority in the Church's life (the means of securing the peace and good order of the Church) is not:

That which Christ's example left indifferent, the authority of that church, in which God hath given thee thy station, may make necessary to thee; though not absolutely necessary, and that none can be saved that do not kneel at the sacrament, therefore because they do not kneel, yet necessary as it is enjoined by lawful authority, and to resist lawful authority, is a disobedience, that may endanger any man's salvation. 

Donne's defence of kneeling to receive the Sacrament replicates the defence mounted by Cranmer and Hooker, not least in understanding that the practice of conformity is not merely a matter of adiaphora.  This was the conviction at the heart of the Laudian vision, that to reject the rites and ceremonies established by the lawful authority disturbs the peace and disorders the life of the Church.  In Donne's words, conformity is "yet necessary".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders.  With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter.  The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition).  Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical).  Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition.  A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics".  Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics.  What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition.  Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...

1928 practices and the 1979 book: unthinking conservatism or popular piety?

Those responsible for Earth & Altar - a new blog emanating from a group within TEC - are to be congratulated for an excellent contribution to wider Anglican discussion and debate. The commitment to "an expansively conceived credal orthodoxy as fully compatible with LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, and racial justice" is an important part of a wider retrieval of creedal orthodoxy within what we might call the post-liberal generation. It is in this spirit that I want to respond to a recent post on the site by Andrew McGowan , Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School.  Against the background of another round of "ill-defined" liturgical revision in TEC, he understandably urges that a fuller reception of the 1979 BCP should occur before further reforms. In doing so, however, he takes aim at what he describes as "clinging to the ritual structures of 1928" while using the text of 1979.  We ...