Laudians against the Durham Book

Many thanks to The North American Anglican for publishing 'In Praise of 1552: A High Church Appreciation'.  At the outset of the essay, I mention that Laudian sentiment at the Restoration should not be assumed to be represented by the small coterie of 'advanced' Laudians in the episcopacy who desired a revision of the liturgy as represented by the Durham Book, "not far removed from the original Book of 1549" (p.245) and a rejection of 1552. I refer in a footnote to Bosher's classic account The Making of the Restoration Settlement: The Influence of the Laudians 1649-1662 (1951).  As the footnote states:

He cannot reconcile the fact that when the BCP was being revised at the Restoration, “the Laudian party was at the height of its influence” (p.245), yet in the 1662 revision “the Laudian influence is barely apparent” (p.246).

The problem here is Bosher viewing Laudianism through the lens of the Durham Book.  This obscures the not insignificant Laudian revisions in 1662 which led Baxter to complain - as Bosher notes! - that these changes "mad the Common Prayer Book more grievous than before".  Bosher protests "it is not easy to find basis for the charge" (p.249).  Actually, it is.  A whole series of changes were clearly and distinctly Laudian.  For example, the rubric accompanying the absolution at Mattins and Evensong previously stated it was "to be pronounced by the minister alone": now it read, "to be pronounced by the Priest alone".  This change reflected Laudian concerns regarding ecclesiastical order.  In the Holy Communion, leaving aside the obvious revisions regarding the manual acts and consuming the consecrated elements, the offertory also now included a rubric which was perfectly Laudian.  Referring to the alms, it stated that they should be brought:

in a decent bason to be provided by the Parish for that purpose; and reverently bring it to the Priest, who shall humbly present and place it upon the holy Table.

It would be difficult to think of wording which more accurately and beautifully captured the Laudian ethos and vision.

The 1662 revision, then, was significantly more Laudian than Bosher allows.  In other words, the Durham Book should not be regarded as somehow the 'authentic' expression of Laudianism.  Much more influential than the Durham Book was the sentiment of Laudian lower clergy and laity.  He tells us that "the Commons in the early summer of 1661 had given notice of its conservative sentiment in liturgical matters" (p.248f.).  The driving force in the Commons supporting the restoration of the Church was a cadre of MPs shaped by ejected Laudian parochial clergy during the Interregnum:

the chief source of Anglican strength in the House came from "the young men" who had been educated by the Laudian clergy (p.146).

Earlier in the book, Bosher refers to the importance during the Interregnum of ejected Laudian clergy being placed in "the homes of the nobility and gentry as tutors and chaplains":

In this way, a generation of young English squires absorbed the principles of "a proscribed and persecuted Church", and came to cherish with romantic devotion the Faith of the Royal Martyr" ... It is this development which explains a phenomenon noted with surprise in the Parliament of 1660 - a solid block of "young men", zealous for episcopacy (p.39).

As for those ejected clergy performing the services and rites of the BCP 1559 in gentry homes, we get a sense of their attachment to the Prayer Book in Jeremy Taylor's reference to the "holy Liturgy" of the Church of England, an attachment intensified by the experience of the 1640s and 50s:

when the Church of England was more glorious than at any time before; Even when she could shew more Martyrs and Confessors than any Church this day in Christendom, even then when a King died in the profession of her Religion, and thousands of Priests, learned and pious Men suffered the spoiling of their goods rather than they would forsake one Article of so excellent a Religion.

Alongside the gentry homes, there was also a populist Anglicanism which welcomed the restoration of the old liturgy.  John Morrill notes the "spontaneity" which characterised the "restoration of the old Church" at Easter 1660, including the use of the Prayer Book, in anticipation of Charles II's return.

Here, and not in the Durham Book, lies the heart of Laudian sentiment at the Restoration.  What is more, this alliance of lower clergy, gentry, and populist opinion - as Bosher admits - "accomplished the work which Laud's discipline had signally failed to do" (p.40).  Against this background, the Durham Book is nothing more than a distraction pursued by a small group within the ecclesiastical elite, having no popular resonance, and - crucially - possessing none of the loyalty and affection which the Interregnum has fostered for the Prayer Book.

Bosher's view that at the Restoration it was decided "to refrain from a Laudian type of revision" (p.247) hangs on the assumption that 'Laudian' means Durham Book when, in fact, for the vast majority of those in 1660 attached to the vision for which Laud laboured, it meant the established "holy Liturgy" of the Prayer Book.  This was the liturgy retained in 1662 with revisions embodying a thoroughly Laudian vision of the "laudable Practice of the Church of England".  Ironically, it is this understanding - rather than the misplaced emphasis on the Durham Book proposed by Bosher - which emphasises his conclusion that 1662 was "the Laudian triumph":

The ecclesiastical settlement which thus took effect has been rightly regarded as a major landmark in English Church history, and remains a permanent achievement of the Laudian party (p.282).