Boys' response is fascinating, not least because he emphasises - against Puritan Separatists - not the Reformed nature of the English Church, but its continuities with the patristic era. In other words, he accuses the Separatists, no less than the papalist apologists, of removing the ancient landmarks. Indeed, he sets forth a very forceful critique of the Separatists and their "platform of government":
Now concerning Schismatics, and Separatists, as they be worthily surnamed, novelists, even so their platform of government, is a new device, which no Fathers ever witnessed, no Council ever favoured, no Church ever followed, until within these few years, it was unhappily digged out of the Alps, and as yet never entertained in England, but rather forsaken of her best and most entire favourites; on the contrary, not only the doctrines, but also the ceremonies of our Church are decent and ancient.
To describe government by presbytery as "unhappily digged out of the Alps" is a phrase we might think more properly belongs to a Laudian, rather to a Jacobean Reformed Conformist. It is a reminder, however, of how Reformed Conformist divines could offer a robust defence of episcopacy. Episcopacy was, as Boys emphasises, one of the ancient landmarks, the ecclesiastical polity known to Fathers and Councils, and to Churches over centuries, unlike government by presbytery, a new invention "digged out of the Alps". (This also, by the way, is another example of how Reformed Conformist - Laudian divisions have, I think, been over-emphasised in some historical accounts.)
What is more, as the final line of the above extract shows, Boys also offered a defence of the Prayer Book's ceremonies, a particular issue of controversy for Puritans and Separatists. Rather than merely defend these ceremonies as required by authority, Boys declares that they are "ancient". In particular, he defends on this ground the most contested of the Prayer Book's ceremonies, the signing with the Cross at Baptism:
the ceremonies of our Church are decent and ancient, even the Cross in Baptism, which they so much abhor, was used in the days of Constantine; within less than four hundred years after Christ, and one of their own side, writeth in his discourse touching the troubles in Frankfurt [in the congregation of Marian exiles], that it continued in the Church 113 years ...
Rooting the use of the sign of the Cross at Baptism in patristic usage, Boys again sounds rather Laudian. Instead of minimising the significance of the practice, regarding its use as merely a matter of legitimate authority, he declares it to be one of ancient landmarks. And, as the text of the sermon stated, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set":
and therefore whatsoever they talk of Apostolical times, and old terms, all their endeavour is, terminos antiquos, to remove the bounds of our Fathers, and to bring they care not what novelties, so these old rites be left ...
The "old rites" - such as signing with the Cross in Baptism - are retained precisely because they are the Church's ancient landmarks, boundary markers for the Church of Christ. To remove them is to take away that which has marked out the Christian life over centuries.
Boys draws his discussion of Papalist and Puritan alternatives to a close with a comparison which would also be heard in George Herbert's later poem, 'The British Church' (1633). As with Herbert, Boys points to the Reformed and Catholic Church of England as our "dear Mother", nourishing us with that which is good:
They that forsake the Church of England, to suck the breasts of Rome, or Amsterdam, may cry with Naomi; 'I went out full, and the Lord hath caused me to return empty'.
As Rogationtide ends for another year, we can, with Boys, give thanks for the ancient landmarks we know, marking out for us the good and nourishing land that is the Anglican way.
Comments
Post a Comment