Responding to Lake's 'On Laudianism': pre-Laudian Calvinistic hegemony?

Peter Lake's On Laudianism: Piety, Polemic and Politics During the Personal Rule of Charles I (2023) has been sitting on my desk for some months. I began reading it on 2nd January and am now one-third of the way through the book. As I had realized from reviews I had previously read, I am in fundamental disagreement with his understanding of Laudianism. Over the next few weeks, there will be a series of posts as I make my way through the book, explaining my disagreements.

Let me begin, however, by stating some agreements. Lake states, "Laudianism was one of a number of ways of being protestant, just one of the modes of reformation available in and to the English post-reformation church" (p.19f). As Laud himself declared in his conference with Fisher, "And the Church of England is Protestant too". Those contemporary critics who accused Laudianism of rejecting the Reformation, and those historians who repeat this claim, entirely miss a fundamental aspect of Laudianism: it was robustly committed to the national Church, the Royal Supremacy, the Prayer Book liturgy, episcopacy, and the Articles of Religion. In other words, it was committed to the fundamental architecture of the Elizabethan Settlement - something which certainly cannot be said of the Parliament's religious reforms of the 1640s. I would note, however, that despite Lake's acknowledgement of Laudianism as "one of a number of ways of being protestant" in the Church of England, he rather fails to consistently or coherently acknowledge this. 

Lake also rightly recognises that while "there might well have been a solid ideological core to Laudianism, Laudianism itself was an ideological synthesis and the Laudian party a coalition" (p.13). I would be rather inclined to doubt, or at least minimise, the ideological emphasis and instead highlight Laudian coalition as something of an ethos rather than an ideological commitment. We might, therefore, view Laudianism as, to use Michael Oakeshott description of conservatism, as a "disposition"; we could likewise use Scruton's understanding of "the conservative temperament".  Laud - unlike his opponents - was not interested in theological uniformity on matters of dispute in the schools. Despite this, the references throughout the book to the coalition that was Laudianism are significant and welcome.

Finally, in terms of agreements, Lake points to Laudianism as "the political theology ... of the Personal Rule" (p.14). While I might have some reservations about how Lake defines Laudian political theology, I am entirely convinced that what made Laudianism controversial for many in the political nation, outside of the self-proclaimed 'godly', was neither altar policy nor 'Arminianism' but it relationship to the Personal Rule. What brought Laud to 10th January 1645 was not his understanding of the 'beauty of holiness' but his place in the administration of the Personal Rule.

Despite these agreements, however, I found myself in fundamental disagreement with Lake from the very first page of his book. Here he defined the aim of the Laudian "project":

Displacement of absolute predestinarianism, sabbatarianism and a version of anti-popery, centered on the identification of the pope as Antichrist, from the hegemonic positions they had, more or less consistently, enjoyed over the preceding decades (p.1).

This is what made Laudianism "a full-scale remaking, a true reformation, of the English church". Here is Laudianism as radical innovation, a revolution against defining characteristics of the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church of England.

What makes this view of Laudianism unconvincing is the assumption that absolute predestinarianism, sabbatarianism, and the Pope as Antichrist were "hegemonic" in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church of England. Considering that Lake gives over the entirety of Part I of the book - pages 47-117 - to discussing in detail Lancelot Andrewes' very different theological vision set out in court sermons before Elizabeth and James I/VI, to describe "absolute predestinarianism" as "hegemonic" is, to say the very least, distinctly odd.

Let us now consider in turn each of the three characteristics which Lake describes as "hegemonic" in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church. (The phrase 'Calvinistic hegemony' is used in the title of this post as convenient short-hand for these three characteristics, nothing more.)

If "absolute predestinarianism" was "hegemonic" we are surely left wondering why the 1595 Lambeth Articles were, by a particular school of divines, deemed necessary in the first place. Surely if "absolute predestinarianism" was hegemonic in the reformed Church of England, the confession of faith - the Articles of Religion - would have been explicit on this matter. The fact that the Articles were not at all explicit in declaring "absolute predestinarianism" is why the Lambeth Articles were deemed necessary. What is more, we are also left asking why - if "absolute predestinarianism" was "hegemonic" - two Supreme Governors (one of whom was the chief architect of the Settlement named after her) of the Church of England refused to authorise the Lambeth Articles. 

Likewise, why did Ussher regard it as necessary for the Irish Articles of 1615 to be framed after the Lambeth Articles, extensively re-writing the Church of England's Article XVII? Article XVII obviously did not require "absolute predestinarianism" to be "hegemonic". Not only was this point consistenly made by critics within the Elizabethan, Jacobean, and Caroline Church of England of the Calvinistic view of predestination: it was also - at least implicitly, some times explicitly - admitted by those who devised the Lambeth Articles and those who urged that they become part of the formularies. All of this clearly suggests that "absolute predestinarianism" was not hegemonic in the Elizabeth and Jacobean Church. The Lambeth Articles were an attempt to make "absolute predestinarianism" hegemonic - but this is an entirely different and contradictory claim. 

That Reynolds at Hampton Court referred to the Articles of Religion as needing to be "explained in places obscure, and enlarged where some things were defective" on the doctrine of election, is also very difficult to reconcile with any claim for "absolute predestinarianism" being "hegemonic". By contrast, Bancroft, Bishop of London, voiced a robust criticism of predestinarians:

the Bishop of London took occasion to signifie to his Majesty, how very many in these days, neglecting Holiness of Life, presumed too much of persisting of Grace, laying all their Religion upon Predestination, if I shall be Saved, I shall be Saved; which he termed a desperate Doctrine, shewing it to be contrary to good Divinity.

What is more, also at Hampton Court, the Dean of St. Paul's, John Overall, took the opportunity to obtain Royal support for his contention that "that whosoever (although before justified) did commit any grievous sin ... did become, ipso facto, subject to Gods wrath, and guilty of damnation, or were in slate of damnation ... until they repented; adding hereunto, that those which were called or justified according to the purpofe of Gods Election, howsoever they might, & did somtimes fall into grievous fins, and thereby into the present state of wrath and damnation". He went on, with Royal support, to paint a negative picture of those opposing this stance:

Against which Doctrine, he said, that some had opposed, teaching, that all such persons as were once truely justified, though after they fell into never so grievous fins, yet remained still just, or in the state of justification, before they actually repented of those sins; yea, and though they never repented of them, through forgetfulnesse or sudden death, yet they would be justified and saved without repentance.

The fact that the Bishop of London and the Dean of St. Paul's - the former consecrated bishop in 1597, the latter appointed dean in 1602, during Elizabeth's reign - both challenged "absolute predestinarianism" at Hampton Court gives the lie to any notion that the Calvinistic view was "hegemonic" in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church of England. 

The judgement given by James, as Supreme Governor, at Hampton Court, however, does demonstrate the fundamental continuity in the Elizabethan, Jacobean, and Caroline Church regarding the debates over predestination - nothing more than Article XVII was required:

when such questions arise among Scholars, the quietest proceeding were, to determine them in the Universities, and not to fluff the Book [of the Articles of Religion] with, all conclusions Theological. 

This, of course, was exactly Laud's view and the policy repeated by Charles I in his 1628 Declaration prefixed to the Articles.

As for a supposed "hegemonic" sabbatarianism, this faces the difficulty that it is entirely absent from the formularies of the Elizabethan Church. The Injunctions of 1558 make no reference to 'Sabbath', using only the word 'Sunday'. BCP 1559 likewise refers to 'Sunday', never 'Sabbath'. There is no reference to the 'Sabbath' in the Articles of Religion. The Canons of 1604, adopted in the second year of the reign of James I, have but one passing use of 'Sabbath'; it is not used in Canon XIII, on 'Due Celebration of Sundays and Holy-days'. Placing 'Sundays' alongside 'Holy-days' was most certainly not a feature of sabbatarianism. 

As for the use of church courts, Graeme Murdock in his Beyond Calvin: The Intellectual, Political and Cultural World of Europe's Reformed Churches (2004) points to the contrast between how kirk sessions in the late 16th century Church of Scotland increasingly policed Sabbath observance, and the focus of English church courts:

In England much of the attention of church courts during the late sixteenth century was also taken up with with cases of fornication and bridal pregnancy, which failed to satisfy Puritan critics who wanted more comprehensive action against a broad range of perceived moral offences.

It is possible that Murdock has slightly over-stated his case. A study of ecclesiastical courts in the Archdeaconary of Nottingham in the late 16th and early 17th century does note "many" presentments for "Sabbath-breaking". As made clear by the study, however, this was with regards to activities which prevented attendance at divine service:

There are many occurrences of presentments relating to people gathering together in someone's home or being in the alehouse 'on the Sabbath day in time of evening prayer' etc. This term ... relates specifically to activities taking place on Sundays or holy days when people were supposed to be in church. 

Perhaps supporters of Lake's view might point to the Elizabethan Second Book of Homilies, in 'An Homily on the Place and Time of Prayer', expounding the Fourth Commandment:

As concerning the time which Almighty God hath appointed his People to assemble together solemnly, it doth appear by the fourth Commandment of God: Remember, saith God, that thou keep holy the Sabbath Day. Upon the which day, as is plain in the Acts of the Apostles, the People accustomably resorted together, and heard diligently the Law and the Prophets read among them. And albeit this Commandment of God doth not bind Christian People so straitly to observe and keep the utter Ceremonies of the Sabbath day, as it was given unto the Jews, as touching the forbearing of work and labour in time of great necessity, and as touching the precise keeping of the Seventh day, after the manner of the Jews. For we keep now the First day, which is our Sunday, and make that our Sabbath, that is, our day of Rest, in the honour of our Saviour Christ, who as upon that day rose from death, conquering the same most triumphantly: Yet notwithstanding, whatsoever is found in the Commandment appertaining to the Law of Nature, as a thing most godly, most just, and needful for the setting forth of Gods glory, it ought to be retained and kept of all good Christian People. And therefore by this Commandment, we ought to have a time, as one day in the Week, wherein we ought to rest, yea, from our lawful and needful works.

To identify this as 'sabbatarianism', however, is not a serious stance. It is, for example, no different from the exposition of the same Commandment given in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

The Apostles therefore resolved to consecrate the first day of the week to the divine worship, and called it the Lord's day. St. John in the Apocalypse makes mention of the Lord's day; and the Apostle commands collections to be made on the first day of the week, that is, according to the interpretation of St. Chrysostom, on the Lord's day. From all this we learn that even then the Lord's day was kept holy in the Church ... But the Church of God has thought it well to transfer the celebration and observance of the Sabbath to Sunday ... Hence it is not difficult to perceive that all servile works are forbidden, not because they are improper or evil in themselves, but because they withdraw the attention from the worship of God, which is the great end of the Commandment ... To omit nothing that may interfere with the sanctification of the Sabbath, the Commandment mentions beasts of burden, because their use will prevent its due observance. If beasts be employed on the Sabbath, human labor also becomes necessary to direct them; for they do not labor alone, but assist the labours of man. Now it is not lawful for man to work on that day. Hence it is not lawful for the animals to work which man uses.

Both the Homily and the Tridentine Catechism expounded the Commandment to mean Christians attending divine service and resting from labour on Sundays. This was not sabbatarianism. Sabbatarianism required a much stricter definition, with ecclesiastical authorities preventing a wide of range recreational activities on the Lord's Day. As James indicated in his Book of Sports, this was the stance of "precise people", preventing "lawfull Recreation, & exercise vpon the Sundayes afternoone, after the ending of all Diuine Seruice". 

As for Laudian teaching, we can turn to Cosin's A Collection of Private Devotions for the Hours of Prayer (1627), in which he listed "The Duties of the Fourth Commandment":

1. As men, to keep holy one day of seven.

2. As Christians, to keep that day of the seven, which, because Christ hath instituted it, is called the Lord's Day; and His Church hath ever observed.

3. Upon this day to give God a solemn and a public worship in the congregation of His saints.

4. To rest from unnecessary servile labours and the common affairs of the world.

5. To give alms of what we have, and to shew forth our charity in works of mercy and devotion, as we are able to perform them unto others.

This general, modest understanding of the Fourth Commandment applying in terms of attending divine service on Sundays (and holy days), and resting from labour, represented the centre of the Elizabethan Church, rather than the sabbatarianism of "precise people". It was the understanding articulated by Cosin which has a claim to be 'hegemonic', as it was the view upheld by a significant spectrum of theological opinion, much broader than was the case with sabbatarianism.

Finally, the Bishop of Rome as the Antichrist. It is deeply odd that this should be regarded as having 'hegemonic' status in the Elizabethan Church when a foundational act of the Elizabethan Settlement removed a similar reference from the Book of Common Prayer: in the words of the Act of Uniformity 1559, "the form of the Litany altered and corrected". This refers, of course, to the removal of the petition for deliverance "from the tyranny of the Bysshop of Rome and al hys detestable enormities". 

Nor is it at all surprising that Elizabeth would act in this manner. Elizabeth herself and all her initial chief appointments in Church and State had, under Mary, conformed to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: as MacCulloch notes of the Elizabethan Settlement, "It was planned and executed entirely by former Nicodemites". This certainly militates against any notion that the leading architects of the Elizabethan Settlement viewed the Bishop of Rome as 'Antichrist'.

The absence of any reference to the Bishop of Rome as 'Antichrist' in Article XIX is also of obvious importance. Comparing the the errors of the Church of Rome to those of "the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch" does not at all imply unique erroneous standing to Rome and clearly makes no implication of the unique status of 'Antichrist'. Rather, as Torrance Kirby notes in his commentary on the Articles, "The chief point is that the visible Church, as a human politic society, of its very nature cannot be infallible". The contrast with the Irish Articles of 1615 only further highlights the very different focus and more modest claims of Article XIX.

An obvious place in which reference to the Bishop of Rome as 'Antichrist' could have been found was the form of prayer authorised in 1606 for the Powder Plot commemoration. It did refer to "Popish treachery" - but no reference is made to 'Antichrist'. If such a conviction was "hegemonic" in the Elizabethan Church, why did it not appear here, in a most obvious and receptive context? The answer is, of course, that the conviction was not "hegemonic". 

While there were many in the Elizabethan Church of England quite prepared to condemn the Pope as 'Antichrist', another significant stream held to a much more modest, reserved condemnation of the Roman Church. James I/VI himself gave voice to this in his 1606 Premonition, envisaging the patriarchal role of the Bishop of Rome in a unified Christendom:

Of Bishops and Church Hierarchies, I very well allow (as I said before) and likewise of Rancks and degrees amongst Bishops. Patriarches I know were in the time of the Primitiue Church, and I likewise reuerence that Institution for order sake; And amongst them was a contention for the firstplace: and for myselfe, if that were yet the question, I would with all my heart giue my consent, that the Bishop of Rome should haue the first Seate; I being a Western King, would goe with ith the Patriarch of the West. And for his temporall Principality ouer the Signory of Rome, I doe not quarrell it neither; let him in God his Name be Primus Episcopus inter omnes Episcopos, and Princeps Episcoporum; so it be no otherwise but as Peter was Princeps Apostolorum.

As Casaubon, James' eirenic court theologian, said of the Bishop of Rome in his Answer to Cardinal Perron (1612), "Let the forme of the ancient Church be restored, and ... his Maiestie ... will acknowledge his primacie". Long before the Laudians, therefore, another stream of thought regarding the papacy was very evident in the Church of England, with roots in the Elizabethan Settlement and echoed in the Jacobean Church.

To conclude this initial post on On Laudianism, it should be clear that the claim on the first page of the book, defining Laudianism as a radical innovation because it sought to displace the "hegemonic" status of  "absolute predestinarianism, sabbatarianism and a version of anti-popery, centered on the identification of the pope as Antichrist" is a deeply contested interpretation. It was indeed the case that each of these views could be and were held in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church of England. A considerable party of bishops, clergy, and divines promoted such views. But in no meaningful sense were these views "hegemonic". They were not the position required of bishops, clergy, and divines in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church: and a significant stream of bishops, clergy, and divines did not hold these views.

It is this very fact which explains how Andrewes could be a favourite court preacher of Elizabeth and James; how Bancroft could be raised to the episcopate under Elizabeth and become Archbishop of Canterbury under James; how Overall could be appointed Dean of St. Paul's under Elizabeth and become a bishop under James. To describe "absolute predestinarianism, sabbatarianism and a version of anti-popery, centered on the identification of the pope as Antichrist" as "hegemonic" in a Church in which these divines - all very well-known for their rejection of the supposedly "hegemonic" views - received such high appointments is utterly unconvincing.