laudable Practice

In early 1623, Francis White was one of the Church of England divines who took part in a disputation , ordered by James I/VI, with Fisher the Jesuit. Later that year, White was appointed Dean of Carlisle, a clearly a sign of royal approval. In 1626, early in the reign of Charles I, he was appointed Bishop of Carlisle, with Cosin preaching at his consecration. He was closely associated with the ecclesiastical policies of the Personal Rule, with his Treatise of the Sabbath Day published in 1635 at the direction of Charles and dedicated to Laud. The trajectory of White post-1623 career in the Church of England - Jacobean and Caroline - is mentioned in order to emphasise that his role in the disputation was clearly highly regarded. It is this which makes his handling of one issue in the debates particularly significant. Regarding the apostolicity of the Church, Fisher had stated: The Church is Apostolicall, and that apparantly descending from the Apostolicall Sea, by succession of Bishops...

In a number of posts on Peter Lake's On Laudianism: Piety, Polemic and Politics During the Personal Rule of Charles I (2023), I have been deeply critical of Lake's depiction of the pre-Caroline Church of England , his failure to account for the continuities in Elizabethan, Jacobean, and Caroline ceremonial conformity , and his entirely unconvincing depiction of 'Laudianism' as an 'Arminian' movement.  All this said, I do have to credit Lake's book with deeply influencing my thought about the Church of England in the 1630s. Having read and reflected upon Lake's 600 pages, I am now convinced that 'Laudianism' should cease to be used as a meaningful term. Put bluntly, Lakes's work - contrary, of course, to his intention - has led me to the view that there was no such thing as 'Laudianism'.  To begin with, Lake offers a profoundly weak case for describing those who supported the ecclesiastical policies of the Personal Rule as 'Laudi...

Of all the descriptions I have read of Cranmer, it is Diarmaid MacCulloch's, in his essay ' Tolerant Cranmer? ', which I find most attractive: "a cautious, well-read humanist". Elsewhere, discussing the biographers of Cranmer, MacCulloch suggests that it is in Cranmer that we see something of what Anglicanism should be: which forces the individual to undertake a good deal of hard thinking in order to make sense of the world around, rather than reaching for some simple model in a book. Not mentioned by MacCulloch amongst Cranmer's biographers, but, I think, an account which points in this direction, evoking the spirit of  "a cautious, well-read humanist", is William Gilpin's 1784  The life of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury . Gilpin was a representative of Georgian England's enlightened clergy and in Cranmer he sees an Erasmian humanist who embodied "wisdom, prudence, learning, moderation" - a precursor, then, of 18th centur...

The False and Erroneous doctrine of the Calvinists On Predestination and the Providence of God. 1] That Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect. 2] That God created the greater part of mankind for eternal damnation, and wills not that the greater part should be converted and live. 3] That the elected and regenerated can not lose faith and the Holy Spirit, or be damned, though they commit great sins and crimes of every kind. 4] That those who are not elect are necessarily damned, and can not arrive at salvation, though they be baptized a thousand times, and receive the Eucharist every day, and lead as blameless a life as ever can be led. Reading Peter Lake's On Laudianism (2024), we might assume that these are words from a Laudian publication of the 1630s, for "Arminian assumptions were absolutely central to the Laudians' own position" (p.425). 'Laudianism', after all, was "an attempt gradually to Arminianise the culture, to disseminate  .....

Today is the eve of the commemoration of the martyrdom of Archbishop Laud. Tomorrow, particular corners of Anglican social media will indulge in a long-standing Whiggish pursuit - condemning the martyred Archbishop. There are, of course, reasons to critique Laud. Indeed, post-1662 High Church opinion was often cautious about aspects of Laud's primacy, not least because of the shadow cast by the Personal Rule . Laud's character has also proven to be as unlikeable to historians as to his critics in the 1630s. That said, we are long overdue a favourable  interpretation of Laud, described by the Cambridge Platonist George Rust, in his sermon at Jeremy Taylor's funeral, as "the wise Prelate".  This post seeks to consider what I am describing as Archbishop Laud's legacy: a vision of popular Anglicanism, a national church embedded in culture through the liturgical rites and rhythms of the parish, an alternative account of the Christian life to that offered by the se...

The young George Bull, having completed his studies with the Puritan Mr. Thomas - and having read those books by "Hooker, Hammond, Taylor, Grotius, Episcopius, &c" provided by the younger Thomas -  now sought ordination. According to Nelson's The Life of Dr. George Bull , this was a moment when Bull's theological allegiances were demonstrated: Soon after that he left Mr. Thomas, he entertained Thoughts of going into Holy Orders; he had read enough to convince him, that meer Presbyters had no Power to give him a Commission to exercise the Sacred Function, especially when the plausible Plea of Necessity could not be urged. In this Case Mr. Bull fought out for an unexceptionable Hand, that his Mission might be valid, according to the Practice of the Christian Church for Fifteen hundred Years, which affordeth not one Instance of Presbyterian Ordination, but what was condemned by the universal Voice of the Catholick Church.  This, of course, was in a context in which e...