Taylor the Hookerian? How Jeremy Taylor employed the Hookerian Conformist case for episcopacy

In a recent post I suggested that the 'Laudian maximalism' - 'no bishop, no sacraments' - of Taylor's 27th January 1661 sermon, at the consecration of two archbishops and ten bishops (including Taylor) for the restored Church of Ireland, is to be primarily understood as a response to the ecclesiastical and political context he faced at the Restoration. With episcopacy abolished in 1646, advocates of jure divino presbytery present and active in the north of Ireland, and the disorder inherited from the Cromwellian Church, Episcopalians required a robust, confident statement of the claims for episcopacy. Such a robust, confident statement needed to address the perceived failure of the moderate Hookerian conformist case for episcopacy, which was unable to withstand the deluge of the 1640s.

Despite this, however, there is significant evidence that Taylor was prepared to nuance such Laudian maximalism when it come to the non-episcopal Reformed churches of the Continent: it was not these churches, but the ecclesiastical disorder of the Three Kingdoms, that was his concern. With his fellow Laudian Bramhall, Taylor sought to mitigate, nuance, and qualify the consequences of the maximalist Laudian defence of episcopacy for the non-episcopal Reformed churches. Related to this, Taylor's hesitant equivocation about Lutheran episcopacy is noteworthy: his questions about its historic succession stand alongside his invocation of Lutheran episcopacy in support of the episcopal order of the Church of England and Ireland.

In other words, the maximalist Laudian case for episcopacy set forth by Taylor in his consecration sermon does not exhaust Taylor's approach to, understanding of, advocacy for episcopacy. This is strikingly apparent on other occasions in 1661 in which, as Taylor labours on behalf of the restored Church of Ireland and in his diocese, he does not invoke a vision of jure divino claims in order to promote episcopacy. 

In1661 Taylor preached both at the opening of the Parliament of Ireland and before the University of Dublin. In both sermons there is a near identical setting forth of the claims for episcopacy. Neither, however, repeat the 'no bishop, no sacraments' language of his consecration sermon:

since Episcopacy hath been of so lasting an abode, of so long a blessing, since it hath ever combin'd with Government, and hath been taught by that spirit that hath so long dwelt in God's Church, and hath now according to the promise of Jesus, that saies the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, been restored amongst us by a heap of miracles, and as it went away, so it return'd again in the hand of Monarchy, and in the bosome of our Fundamental Laws; suffer no evil tongue to speak against this Truth, which hath had so long a testimony from God, and from Experience, and from the wisdome of so many Ages, of all your Ancestours and all your Laws, lest ye be found to speak against God, and neglect the things that belong unto your Peace, and get nothing by it but news and danger, and what other effects ye know not - Sermon to the Parliament of Ireland;

I give my instance in episcopal government, which hath been of so lasting an abode, of so long a blessing, hath its firmament by the principles of Christianity, hath been blest by the issues of that stabiliment; it hath for sixteen hundred years combined with monarchy, and hath been taught by the Spirit which hath so long dwelt in God's Church, and hath now - according to the promise of Jesus, that says, "the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church" - been restored amongst us by a heap of miracles; and as it went away, so now it is returned again in the hand of monarchy, and in the bosom of our fundamental laws. Now, that doctrine must needs be suspected of error, and an intolerable lie, that speaks against this truth, which hath had so long a testimony from God, and from the wisdom and experience of so many ages, of all our ancestors, and all our laws - Sermon to the University of Dublin.

In both of these sermons, Taylor's case for episcopacy is very similar to the Hookerian Conformist case that Laudians, including Taylor, had regarded as insufficient from the late 1630s. Long continuity throughout the history of the Church catholic, its practical advantages, its relationship to monarchy, its place in the fundamental laws of the kingdom: this is indeed how non-Laudian Conformists had expressed support for episcopacy in the 1640s. Speaking before the representatives of the political nation in Parliament, and to their sons in the University of Dublin, Taylor eschewed maximalist Laudian language for much more consensual and moderate tones. To the Parliament, he also, again in Hookerian fashion and with the knowledge of "the late unhappy confusions", set forth episcopal order as the way of peace in the face of disorder. The reference to the Kingdom's "fundamental laws" also echoed the Erastian character of some non-Laudian Conformist arguments for episcopacy in the 1640s.

In both contexts, Taylor knew that his audience included those very many who had conformed under the Commonwealth and some who preferred a presbyterian order. Neither occasion was suited to high-flying Laudian maximalism. A more moderate, sober case for episcopacy was called for. And this is what Taylor delivered.

A similar approach is also evident in the two sermons he preached - 'On the Minister's Life and Duty' - at the primary visitation of his dioceses in 1661. When he gave an account of the unifying characteristics of the Church catholic, he referred to episcopacy:

and all Churches have been governed by bishops, and the rites of Christianity have been for ever administered by separate orders of men, and those men have been always set apart by prayer and the imposition of the bishop's hands; and all Christians have been baptized, and all baptized persons were, or ought to be, and were taught that they should be, confirmed by the bishop, and presidents of religion.

Again, a Hookerian Conformist could happily have made such a statement. It made no jure divino claim for episcopacy, the emphasis being on the practice of the Church catholic over the centuries. His focus then moved to how opposition to episcopacy encouraged disorder in church and state:

Can the definition of a Christian be that a Christian is a man that rails against bishops and the common prayer-book? and yet this is the great labour of our neighbours that are crept in among us; this they call the work of the Lord, and this is the great matter of the desired reformation; in these things they spend their long breath, and about these things they spend earnest prayers, and by these they judge their brother, and for these they revile their superior, and in this doughty cause they think it fit to fight and die ... not a word of obedience or self-denial; they are never taught to suspect their own judgment, but always to prefer the private minister before the public, the presbyter before a bishop, fancy before law, the subject before his prince, a prayer in which men consider not at all before that which is weighed wisely and considered; and, in short, a private spirit before the public.

Rather than relying on jure divino claims for episcopacy, Taylor was again appealing to moderate opinion, invoking the standard arguments of Hookerian Conformity. This would have been all the more significant in light of Taylor's meeting with a delegation of Presbyterian clergy on the eve of his visitation. As is made clear by an account of this encounter by one of the Presbyterian spokesmen, Taylor ensured that the focus was on Presbyterian jure divino claims:

he questioned them whether they held Presbyterian government to be "jure divino," and desired they would give a positive answer. They readily answered they did. To this the bishop replied, that there needed no farther discourse of the matter of accommodation if they held to that. They said it was a truth whereof they were persuaded in their consciences, and could not relinquish it, but must profess it as they were called.

Taylor "then questioned them if they could take the oath of supremacy". The Presbyterian ministers equivocated, saying they would take it if an appropriate "explication" was added to the Oath. Taylor responded:

he would tender it to them in the grammatical sense, and said he knew none to take that oath but Jesuits and Presbyterians, who were the greatest enemies to monarchy, and most disobedient to kings - which he instanced in the case of the Assembly of Scotland, and in Calvin, Knox, Buchanan.

This encounter is significant, both for what Taylor said and what he did not say. He made no claim for jure divino episcopacy before the Presbyterian ministers. It was they who were making high-flying jure divino claims for government by presbytery. By highlighting their hesitation and reservations concerning the Oath of Supremacy, he was connecting them with the rebellious Solemn League and Covenant. It was, on Taylor's part, an expertly crafted political appeal to moderates. 

Such moderates were to be particularly found amongst the laity. As Heber, in his life of Taylor, notes: 

The virtues and eloquence of Taylor ... were not without effect on the laity, who were, at the same time, offended by the refusal of their [Presbyterian] pastors to attend a public conference [i.e. Taylor's visitation]. The nobility and gentry of the three dioceses, with one single exception, came over, by degrees, to the bishop's side.

Against this background we can see why Taylor did not employ the maximalist Laudian case for episcopacy as he sought to encourage conformity in his dioceses. With a significant proportion of the parishes under his care - at least 36 - having been served by Presbyterian ministers under the Commonwealth, with episcopacy having been abolished since 1646, and with the political nation principally seeking peace and order after the upheavals, wars, and confusions of the previous decades, high-flying Laudian jure divino claims were highly unlikely to encourage lay support for episcopacy and conformity. 

Taylor's deployment of the more traditional Hookerian Conformist case for episcopacy was effective amongst the laity. Heber references how he "employed the good offices of pious laymen of their own persuasion [i.e. Presbyterian]" to encourage Presbyterian ministers to conform. It is not insignificant that of the Restoration bishops in the north of Ireland, it was - according to Boulton - Taylor who gave episcopal orders to the most Presbyterian ministers (five, contrasted, for example, to Bramhall's one). 

As Heber puts it, Taylor "offered his best endeavours to give satisfaction or obtain relief for their scruples". The ability of "his persevering kindness and Christian example" to encourage Conformity was echoed in the Presbyterian account of this time, which grudgingly described Taylor as "a man pretending civility and some courteous carriage". We might note that these descriptions do not suggest a reliance on unpopular and highly partisan Laudian arguments for episcopacy, much more likely to alienate those with presbyterian sentiments. 

Rather than the Laudian maximalism of his consecration sermon, Taylor's approach in his dioceses reflected the Hookerian Conformist discourse of his sermons before the Parliament and the University of Dublin. Demonstrating political and pastoral wisdom, it indicated an understanding that high-flying Laudianism - while it found a ready audience in St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, amidst the splendour and triumph of 27th January 1661 - was not appropriate when addressing the wider political nation, as it decided how to restore order to the constitution of church and state, or in the context of northern dioceses in which presbyterianism had taken root. In other words, Taylor the Laudian of 27th January 1661 became, before Parliament, the university, and in his dioceses, Taylor the Hookerian.