laudable Practice

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...

Our readings from Nelson's 1713 Life of Dr. George Bull now reach the publication of Bull's first work, the work which would establish his reputation as the leading divine of the Arminian Conformist stream of thought in the post-Restoration Church of England. His  Harmonia Apostolica   quickly became a defining text of what Samuel Fornecker's excellent study terms Arminian Conformity. It is this which makes Nelson's opening comments on the work particularly interesting: In the Year 1669, he first Printed that excellent Piece, his Apostolical Harmony, &c. which was begun by him, when but Young, with a View of settling Peace in the Church, upon a Point of greatest Importance to all its Members. This Book he Dedicated to his Diocesan the Bishop of Gloucester, Dr. William Nicholson, a very proper Judge and Patron, who had very much also encouraged and supported him in this Work. I have previously mentioned in this series that Stephen Hampton places Nicholson amon...

As Hungary will be featuring in Monday's post, I thought it would be appropriate today - as Saint Bartholomew's Day approaches, the anniversary of the implementation of the 1662 Act of Uniformity - to consider how Episcopalian divine John Durel, in his A view of the government and publick worship of God in the reformed churches beyond the seas wherein is shewed their conformity and agreement with the Church of England (1662), points to the government, ceremonies, and liturgy of the Reformed Churches of Hungary and Transylvania as he defends the episcopal and liturgical order of the English Church. On the matter of church government, Durel notes the account given by the Episcopalian Isaac Basire, who had spent time in Hungary and Transylvania during the Interregnum: Reverend Doctor Basire sheweth out of the very Canons of the Hungarian Churches that they have Bishops both name and thing for their Governors and Pastors; that they think themselves bound to have those several Orde...

In our readings from Robert Nelson's The Life of Dr. George Bull (1713), we have previously considered Bull's reading of 'the prayers' (that is, Morning and Evening Prayer), and his ministry from the pulpit . Today we turn to his administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. While Nelson is still, at this point, discussing Bull's incumbency in the years following the Restoration, it almost certainly stands as a description of his administration of the sacraments throughout his ministry. In doing so it also reveals something of how the understanding of the Sacraments in Anglicanism throughout the 'long 18th century'. Nelson begins by drawing attention to the frequency of Bull's administration of the Holy Communion in his parish: He Administered the Sacraments of our Holy Religion with great Reverence and Solemnity; The Holy Eucharist, the Mysterious and the Rite and Perfection of Christian Worship, was not performed so often in this Parish, ...

In the afternoon to the Abbey, where a good sermon by a stranger, but no Common Prayer yet - 1st July 1660. After dinner to St. Margaret’s, where the first time I ever heard Common Prayer in that Church - 5th August 1660. In the morn to our own church, where Mr. Mills did begin to nibble at the Common Prayer, by saying 'Glory be to the Father, &c.' after he had read the two psalms; but the people had been so little used to it, that they could not tell what to answer  - 4th November 1660. This day also did Mr. Mills begin to read all the Common Prayer, which I was glad of - 11th November 1660. Pepys' diary entries for 1660 provide an insight into how the return of the Book of Common Prayer was, in many places, approached with a prudent caution in the aftermath of the Restoration. It was, of course, the case that, as the Preface to the 1662 revision would declare, in constitutional terms, the legal requirement to use to the Prayer Book had not been legitimately repeale...

Today we resume our weekly readings from Robert Nelson's 1713 The Life of Dr. George Bull , one of the particularly significant divines of the 18th Church of England. Prior to Lent, we had left Bull in the immediate aftermath of the Restoration, in a nation reeling from the political and religious divisions of the past few decades, his preaching already indicating the wisdom and moderation of the Arminian Conformity central to the Church of England during the long 18th century. We now move to 1662, when Nelson was presented to a new cure: In the Year 1662, Mr. Bull was presented to the Vicaridge of Suddington St. Peter, by the then Lord Chancellor the Earl of Clarendon, at the Request and Application of his constant Patron, and worthy Diocesan, Dr. Nicholson, who was made Bishop of Gloucester upon the Restoration, and who had all that Merit which was necessary to fill so great a Station in the Church to the best Advantage, if his Steddiness to her Doctrines and Discipline, in ...

In the Year 1659, the Nation began to be very sensible of the Misery they had long groaned under, and were very earnest to relieve themselves from that Oppression, which had so long prevailed among them ...  Upon the Restoration, Mr. Bull frequently Preached at Cirencester, where there was a populous and large Congregation. With these words, Robert Nelson - in his 1713 The Life of Dr. George Bull - brings us to the Restoration. Bull who, as we have seen in recent posts, was a conforming Episcopalian, ministering in the Cromwellian Church during the final years of the Interregnum, continued to minister in his parish. This itself is an indication of how normal it was for conforming Episcopalian clergy to be serving in the Cromwellian Church, and then continue to minister at the restoration of episcopacy. Nelson notes that Bull at the Restoration was also regularly preaching at Cirencester, where his aged father-in-law was incumbent: The Choice of the Subjects which he discoursed up...

In a recent post addressing Jeremy Taylor's understanding of episcopacy at the Restoration, I sought to demonstrate that the maximalist Laudianism (to use Peter Lake's terminology) of his 27th January 1661 consecration sermon was not reflected in his attempts to reconcile both the political nation and his dioceses to episcopacy. Instead, I characterised these attempts as defined by the Hookerian Conformist case for episcopacy: an emphasis on the antiquity of episcopacy, but not making jure divino claims; the relationship between episcopacy and ecclesiastical and political stability, after "the late unhappy confusions"; and how the exalted claims of jure divino  presbytery contrasted with the fidelity of the bishops to the Royal Supremacy.  Taylor's deployment of the discourse of Hookerian Conformity placed him firmly within the Restoration Episcopalian mainstream. Laudian jure divino claims for episcopacy were not characteristic of how the restored Church and M...

But this emphasis [in Restoration Episcopalian accounts] on martyrdom, ejection and exile has obscured the extent to which prominent episcopalian conformists were subsequently prepared to defend their Interregnum careers, presenting their ministries in these years as evidence of steadfast commitment to both the Church of England and the king. By staying within the Church, ministers had acted as a bulwark against heresy and error, the last bastions of ‘true Protestantism’, and thereby worked to protect and to ‘undeceive’ the distracted laity - (re)shaping attitudes towards liturgy, episcopacy and even monarchy. William White, in ' Remembering Episcopalian Conformity in Restoration England ', thus reminds us that alongside the narrative of persecution and martyrdom promoted by formerly non-conformist Episcopalians at the Restoration, there was another narrative to be told, that of the Episcopalian Conformists in the Cromwellian Church. As we saw last week , George Bull was amongs...

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...