Something of this is also indicated in Bramhall's words of praise for his predecessor in the See of Armagh, in his Discourse on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day (written shortly after Ussher's death in 1656):
the late Lord Primate of Armagh ... under whose pious and moderate government I lived sundry years a Bishop in the Province of Ulster, whilst the political part of the care of that Church did lie heavy upon my shoulders. I praise God, we were like the candles in the Levitical Temple, looking one towards another, and all towards the stem. We had no contention among us, but who should hate contention most, and pursue the peace of the Church with swiftest paces.
If we wanted an illustration to demonstrate the doctrinal consensus in the Jacobean and Caroline Church, it is difficult to think of one more fitting.
That said, of course, Bramhall's words might lead us to raise an eyebrow when we consider how he and Ussher disagreed on the question of whether the Irish Articles should be replaced by the English Articles. Bramhall, however, describes these differences - and the differences between the two sets of Articles - in very modest terms:
It is true, that in the first Convocation after the Earl of Strafford's coming to the Sword in Ireland, the question was calmly debated in the House of the Bishops concerning the English and Irish Articles, whether of them were fitter in point of uncontroverted truth, and unity, and uniformity, and prudential compliance with tender consciences, to be imposed upon the Irish clergy ... Neither was it [i.e. adoption of the English Articles] first proposed by my Lord Primate, but in truth opposed by him; and with him joined Dr. Martin, Bishop of Meath, not out of any disaffection in either of them to the English Articles, as I judge, but out of love to the Irish: the truth or untruth whereof were not so much as questioned then, but the authority - whether of them should be acknowledged for the future to be the Articles of the Church of Ireland, and the public standard and seal of our Irish doctrine. There were no thoughts of two distinct standards at that time.
This, in other words, certainly was not a dispute between two confessions differing in major doctrinal points. For Bramhall the Laudian, it was the case that the Irish Articles unwisely referred to "unnecessary controverted points", whereas the reserve of the English Articles on such matters "doth commonly produce unity". It was, however, a prudential matter: which set of Articles were more likely to promote, via clerical subscription, unity, peace, and concord? Bramhall, after all, had received episcopal consecration in a Church of Ireland in which the Irish Articles were the confession of faith. The question was not, as he stated, about "the truth or untruth" of the two sets of Articles.
It is this background - a broad ecclesiastical consensus between Reformed Conformist and Laudian, expressed in a shared commitment to a Reformed episcopal national church, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Royal Supremacy - which allows us to understand Bramhall's praise for Ussher in the closing sentence of the Discourse on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day:
this reverend primate ... who was an honour to his native country, an ornament to the Reformed Church, a conscionable preacher, and an exemplary pattern of piety.
Such praise by a leading Laudian for the leading Reformed Conformist figure is a significant reminder that these two sensibilities - despite their disputes and debates - had more in common than many historical interpretations allow. And note, by the way, how Bramhall the Laudian is entirely at ease with the use of the phrase "the Reformed Church".
Perhaps, then, Reformed Conformists and Laudians were indeed "like the candles in the Levitical Temple, looking one towards another, and all towards the stem".
(The picture is of a stained glass window in Armagh Cathedral of Ussher and his successor Bramhall, the Reformed Conformist and the Laudian, side by side.)
I am heartily glad to see the encomia for Archbishop Ussher. He has become something like a patron for me in the last couple of decades. On my sanctoral calendar weblog (for the ACNA's kalendar), I put him forward as a "supplemental" commemoration, since he is not so commemorated in any Anglican sanctoral calendar with which I am familiar. (Perhaps Ireland is the exception to this?) I do my part to remember with gladness and thanksgiving this bishop and primate, scholar, and loyal churchman who was “most learned among the holy, most holy among the learned.”
ReplyDeletehttps://forallsaints.wordpress.com/2023/03/24/james-ussher-archbishop-of-armagh-and-teacher-of-the-faith-1656/
Many thanks for your comment. Ussher is a fascinating character. Strangely, while the Irish BCP 2004 does have a calendar of commemorations, only two post-Reformation worthies are included: Taylor and Inglis. I confess I am not sure how to explains Ussher's absence.
Delete