Clipped from https://thehackneyhub.blogspot.com/2012/01/laudian-ceremonial-part-one.html and https://thehackneyhub.blogspot.com/2012/02/laudian-ceremonial-part-two.html
by The Hackney Hub

The themes are similar to the other ceremonial pieces I have written and I hope to have demonstrated that there was a limit to ceremonial that was acceptable under canon law in the English Church, as we see in these accounts. All the page numbers in parentheses refer to the Hierurgia Anglicana which is an excellent book in researching ceremonial practices in the English Church after the Reformation.

1. Introduction to Laudianism

Before we dive into the ceremonial practice of the Laudians, it is important to discuss briefly what Laudianism was. There is no one answer as to what Laudianism was, though, for it is a far more historically complex movement than it is sometimes portrayed. Modern historical scholarship dedicated to the study of this part of history tries to analyze the goals of the movement, its motivation for such goals, who was the primary architect of the movement, and how the various players interacted with each other.

John M. Adrian characterizes Laudianism as a push for uniformity in the Church of England from Charles and Laud, as opposed to the laxity practiced by Elizabeth and James, which ultimately “disturbed the peace” and eventually led to the Civil War. Adrian speaks of the increasing diversity of the Jacobean church, encouraged by the laxity of the reigning monarch and preceding one. James’ concern was with driving out radical Puritanism and recusants, beyond an acknowledgment of the Prayer Book, he did little to enforce doctrinal or ceremonial uniformity. The laxity in discipline was encouraged by the style of bishops appointed during Elizabeth’s reign who preferred a style of episcopacy “which overlooked divisive issues of nonconformity in favour of the common endeavour of bishop and puritan to spread the gospel and resist Roman Catholicism” (Adrian, 28). The bishops wished to pursue a general Protestant unity with an evangelical concern to spread the Gospel. They were not concerned with strictly enforcing the use of the Prayer Book, etc. on the ministers of the Church of England. In fact, Adrian claims that the only thing which held the Jacobean church together and, in fact, its “genius” was this laxity in uniformity. The real enemy of James’ church was the radical Puritan and the recusant, moderate Puritanism flourished during his reign because the necessity of wearing a surplice or using the ritual of the Prayer Book was not forced on the church. Adrian quotes Peter White who believes that, “the Jacobean church… was more of a broad spectrum of beliefs [rather] than a pair of polarized camps” (30). This would all change with the ascendancy of Charles I to the throne of England.

When Charles assumed the throne, it appears that he did not adopt the religious policy of previous English monarchs. He shared a vision with a host of divines named collectively “the Caroline Divines” who held to a system of thought known as “Laudianism” which Peter Lake defines as “a coherent, distinctive and polemically aggressive vision of the Church, the divine presence in the world and the appropriate ritual response to that presence” (30). As mentioned earlier, there is much debate in scholarly circles over whether this system should be called “Laudianism” and whether or not Charles was a more active participant in the program. It seems that the Laudians began to view the Jacobean church and its tolerance as a bad thing and turned to the official canons and Prayer Book of the Church for guidance. They began to require strict conformity to these rules and regulations.

The top-level clergy of Charles I all viewed the laxity of the Jacobean church with some suspicion and “tended to view Jacobean ‘unity’ as illusory… for them, flexibility and accommodation really only masked disorder and division; this they sought to rectify with a programme of order, obedience, and uniformity” (30). Adrian suggests that this push towards uniformity actually stemmed from a desire for greater inclusivity in the English Church on the part of the Laudians and their ‘Arminian’ convictions, a term used for the system of thought opposed to the individualism of English Calvinism. In their attempt to construct a more communal and objective salvation, the Laudians emphasized the worship of the Church and the divinely-instituted sacraments as the means of grace. This emphasis on the ritual of the Church necessitated a greater enforcement of the standards of the Church. I would also contrast the style of episcopacy that Laud and other supporters envisioned. Instead of being “gospel partners” with nonconformists, Laudian bishops thought of themselves as apostolic pastors, an image which would dominate later High Church theology, especially in America.

The Laudians sought to implement their program through the cathedrals. The Laudian program was fully implemented in cathedrals and the cathedrals, in turn, were to be exemplars for the rest of the parishes in the Church of England. It is important to realize that the Laudians desired for their program to be implemented by the local parishes. In addition to the cathedrals, the King’s chapel was viewed as the best example of what an English parish should look like, “The king’s chapel… or the king’s practice in his chapel… is the best interpreter [of the] rubrics, laws and canons of the Church” (Peter Heylyn quoted in Adrian, 32).

In addition to their ceremonial concerns, the Laudians also sought to enforce official church doctrine. In the Royal Instructions of 1629, Charles sought to restrict “lectures, tightening ordination procedures, and increasing the presence of the liturgy – particularly the practice of catechizing” (33). In essence, Charles was attempting to control the Puritans at the pulpit and emphasize the standard liturgy over the subjective pulpit.

And finally, to introduce briefly some of the objectives of the Laudian program, which all were intended to bring more continuity between the English Church and the early Church. They were all external, and usually ceremonially, concerns, largely stemming from the disregard for the canons of 1604. Things such as the wearing of authorized vestments (surplice, tippet, and cope) for divine service, the kneeling to receive Communion, the sign of the Cross at baptism, the wedding ring, the placing of the Table at the east end of the chancel with rails about it, bowing at the name of Jesus, and facing the east for prayers, were all visible manifestations of the Laudian concern for a more objective spirituality, rooted in the liturgy of the Church and the sacraments as divinely-constituted means of grace.

2. Specific Persons and Places

2.1 Bishop Andrewes and His Chapel

Lancelot Andrewes is known as somewhat of a “traditionalist” among the Caroline Divines both in theology and liturgy. Kenneth Stevenson reflects on a particular Easter service in 1617, describing the choral tradition in place at Durham and the vesture of the choristers and clergymen in cope and surplice. Stevenson suggests that, perhaps, the ceremonial complexity which Andrewes encouraged at his chapel stemmed from his differing Eucharistic theology from the Calvinistic consensus in the Church of England at that time. Stevenson quotes Brian Gerrish and his terminology of Reformation Eucharistic theology. Gerrish coins the term “symbolic instrumentalism” for Calvin’s thought, which he then contrasts with the “symbolic memorialism” of Zwingli and the “symbolic parallelism” of Bullinger, all of which are different from Lancelot Andrewe’s theology. Stevenson then quotes Jeffrey Steel who describes Andrewe’s theology as “effectual instrumentalism” (229). “When he [Andrewes] speaks of signs that ‘show and work both’, and, furthermore, are ‘a seal or pledge, to us, of our own, that what we see in him this day shall be accomplished in our own selves at his good time’ we have evidence of a sacramental theology that is keenly aware of the pitfalls of all that the Reformation found unacceptable in late mediaeval theology and piety; that looks to sacraments in what they do in the faithful believer, as well as what they are in themselves; but still holds on to an understanding that is strong without being impersonal, and humanward without becoming entirely subjective” (229). It seems likely that Andrewe’s theology of the Lord’s Supper would lead to a “higher” ceremonial in the time of Divine Service.

The furnishings of Andrewe’s private chapel are somewhat famous in Anglican history as being a bit more “high” than most of the other Church of England parishes at the time. It is notable that Andrewe’s private chapel was the place with these ceremonial accretions and not a parish church. However, the interior of Andrewe’s chapel must have been a site to see. “The focal point was the altar, raised on a foot-board and adorned with its lavish frontal against the eastern wall where it had been in the ancient and medieval churches. It was railed off from the rest of the chancel to denote it was sanctum Sanctorum” (Dorman, 1999: 2). Obviously, the placement of the table or altar against the east end of the chancel was in accordance with Elizabethan and later standards for the Church of England. However, Andrewes had taken it a step further by elevating the altar above the nave by a platform to emphasize the holiness and presence of God at that place. The altar itself was also adorned with “two candlesticks with tapers, basin for the oblation, and a cushion of violet and crimson, damask which matched the altar frontal, for the service book,” in addition, “when the Eucharist was celebrated a chalice, paten, and tricanale for mixing the wine with the water were also placed upon it, whilst on the credence table were the ‘silver and gilt canister for the wafers like a wicker-basket and lined with cambric laced,’ a small barrel for the communion wine, ‘a basin and ewer’ and towel for the ablutions” (2). This description shows several things about Andrewe’s ceremonial. First, he continued in the tradition of having candlesticks upon the altar with tapers, which had been abandoned by much of the Church at that time. Andrewes was intent on using wafers and mixing water with the wine in the Eucharist, in continuation with the pre-Reformation traditions. More notable was that Andrewes kept another small table where was placed, “a ‘navicula’ (i.e. boat shaped vessel) from ‘which frankincense is poured’ into a ‘triquestral censer’ for censing at the appropriate places in the Liturgy.” The use of incense by the Caroline Divines and other pre-Tractarian High Churchmen has been of some particular interest to me, although, I cannot find any description as to how it was used, but it is evident that it was used. The evidence seems to indicate that incense was used as a fragrance more than in the action of censing things in the Liturgy but perhaps Andrewes is an exception to that general rule. “The censer hung in the chancel behind the lectern during the services to symbolize the offering of worship to God,” probably reminiscing the imagery in Revelation, “And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand” (8:4). In addition, there was, “a hanging depicting the story of Abraham and Melchizedek,” emphasizing Andrewes’ belief in the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.

Not only was the altar itself adorned but also the ornaments on it were adorned beyond the standards of the time. The paten and chalice, which departed from the Reformation use of a communion cup, had engraved images on them. They had an image of the Good shepherd on the chalice and the star of Bethlehem on the paten. These images were apparently very popular in the early Church according to Andrewes, “In the old Ritual of the Church, the wise man’s star was engraved on the cover of the canister, wherein was the Sacrament of his body to show that now the star leads us thither, to his body there” (3).

Beyond the adornment of the ornaments of the church and the vessels for the Lord’s Supper, Andrewes also adorned the Liturgy by “amplifying” it and making it conform more with the Liturgy of the 1549 Prayer Book and the medieval ritual. Andrewes used the lack of rubrics in the 1559 Prayer Book to elaborate the ceremonial to reflect a pre-Reformation celebration of the Liturgy. Dorman offers several examples where Andrewes differed from the standard Liturgy, notably in the offertory. “The bishop or celebrant ascended the altar steps with treble adoration and knelt at the altar. Meanwhile the priest took the basin from the back of the altar and placed it at the front,” it is important to note that the treble adoration was employed by the Caroline Divines in the Liturgy, which is an example of a civil custom being used in a religious sense, for the treble adoration was used towards the monarch. “Next he brought the canister and wine-barrel to the bishop who offered them on behalf of the congregation and placed them on the altar. The bishop then put his own alms in the basin, after which he went to the entrance to the chancel to read the offertory sentences, which were of Andrewes’ devising” (3). Andrewes separated the preparation of the elements from the reception of the peoples’ gifts. The elements were prepared immediately before the consecration, an intentional departure from the standard Liturgy. Andrewes used wafers and wine mixed with water, as per ancient custom. Andrewes incorporated the lavabo in his celebration of the Liturgy, which was not included in the Prayer Book. “‘The priest after adoration pours water upon the napkin and cleanses his hands’, saying as he does the traditional words from psalm twenty-six, verse six, ‘Lavabo in innocentia manus, meas, et sic introibo ad altare Dei, ut annunciem vocem.’” (4). It is unclear whether Andrewes recited the portion of Ps 46 in Latin or English.

During the prayer of consecration, Andrewes restored the manual acts as they had been in 1549 (recalling that the 1552-1604 Prayer Books did not have the manual acts but they were restored in 1662), but he did not elevate the elements at the Canon. He also preferred the order of 1549 editing the ritual of the Prayer Book by inserting the prayer of oblation in the prayer of consecration (Dorman, 8).

2.1.2 Andrewes’ Customary

Dorman gives an excellent summary of how the liturgy was celebrated in Andrewes’ chapel, giving a step by step description of the actions of the ministers at the Liturgy. I will give a summary here.

The Liturgy begins with an introit (presumably the provisions of the 1549 Book but this is not specifically stated); the ministers enter and make a treble adoration towards the altar. The celebrant, epistler, and gospeller, assumed their position at the altar, and if there were only two ministers officiating, they were to stand at the north and south ends of the altar, “as it were ‘the two Cherubims at the mercy-seat’” (4-5). The celebrant sings the collect at his place at the altar and then “descends to the door of the septum” (5), presumably the rood screen. He bows towards the altar and leads the Decalogue. He then returns to the altar and “kneels to say ‘the collect of the day.’ The epistler and gospeller bow to the altar respectively before reading their part of the service. The Creed and Sermon followed as they were prescribed in the Prayer Book, although Andrewes included a Gradual in his service.

After the offertory, the prayer for the Church followed, which was led by the deacon, according to ancient customs. Andrewes preferred the second Exhortation since it encouraged private confessions of sins. When the general confession was to be said, the deacon or a priest would “descend to the door, and kneeling, said the confession, the people repeating after him” (6).

The Sursum corda was sung, as were all other parts of the service which traditionally were sung. As I mentioned earlier, Andrewes differed from the standard Liturgy significantly in this part of the service. In addition to altering the order of the prayer of oblation, Andrewes rearranged the entire prayer of consecration as follows: the Sanctus, the prayer of consecration, the prayer of oblation, the Lord’s Prayer, the Prayer of Humble Access, and finally, the Agnus Dei.

The rest of the service followed the standard Liturgy with the Thanksgiving prayer, Gloria, and Blessing in their usual places. It is interesting that Andrewes preferred and defended the post-communion position of the Gloria instead of its ancient place at the beginning of the liturgy. The only other instance in which Andrewes preferred the Reformation standards was in the preference of the cope over the chasuble.

2.2 John Cosin and Cathedral at Durham

Looking at individual persons during the period, we can get a clear picture of the ceremonial practices associated with the Laudian program. Dr. Cosin stands as one of the key players in the Laudian reforms, due to his personal connection with Laud and support of the program by implementing the ceremonial associated with it at Durham Cathedral. As in other articles in this series, we can gather a lot of information about what was going on based on Puritan accounts of things they found troubling in the Laudian church. Perhaps a bit of caution should be exercised when trusting the Puritans’ accounts, especially in regards to their accuracy. One, the Puritans were not acquainted with the ritual actions promoted by the Laudians and could have misinterpreted them. Likewise, they are completely biased and could have used their accounts to exaggerate the actual practices of the Laudians.

The ritual at Durham Cathedral is probably one of the best representations of the full Laudian ceremonial program in force that we have recorded. Consequently, the features typically associated with Laudianism are clearly visible in the ceremonial at Durham Cathedral, especially under Dr. Cosin (practices which survived until the end of the 18th century – See “Eighteenth Century Ceremonial”). As in other treatments of ceremonial so far, we can see that objections to ceremonial stem from several origin points: the ornaments of the church; the ornaments of the minister; and the actions of the minister. The Puritans disliked the Established Church’s position on ornaments in general, being opposed to the retention of chancels, naves, rood screens, etc. in addition to surplices and copes. In particular, they disliked the ceremonial being promoted by Laud which was not obligatory on English clergy by canon law.

Regarding the ornaments of the church, Cosin seems to have followed the canons of 1604 in keeping the parish church as it had been, to an extent. As the Puritans disliked the official standards, they obviously disliked the Laudians’ encouragement and endorsement of those standards. The complaints against Dr. Cosin by Peter Smart are one of the sources that reveal the type of ornaments that Cosin was employing in Durham Cathedral, for example, Smart writes, “That the said Dean and Prebendaries set up and renewed many gorgeous images and pictures, three whereof were statues of stone; one of which standing in the midst represented the picture of CHRIST, with a gold beard, a blue cap, and sun-rays upon his head” (Hierurgia Anglicana, 36). Obviously the image of Christ was related to idolatry in the mind of the Puritans. Likewise, they were not pleased with the use of candles in Durham Cathedral, both upon the altar and elsewhere in the church (the use of candles on the altar was technically illegal except to provide light), Mr. Smart’s complaint continues, “That the said Dean and Prebendaries did use an excessive number of candles, more upon a Saint's Day than upon the Lord's day; and caused the same candles to be lighted in the said church in a new, strange, and superstitious manner, burning two hundred wax candles in one Candlemas night... The manner of lighting the candles was this: they caused two choristers in their surplices to come from the west end of the quire, with lighted torches in their hands, who, after sundry bowings by the way to and at the altar, did light the candles upon the same with their torches;” (H.A., 37). Although the illegality of Cosin’s actions is questionable since the 1604 canons and the Ornaments Rubric require the church to be kept as it had been “in times past,” a plea to peace and civility from Elizabeth I. Mr. Smart includes one more complaint against the ornaments of Durham Cathedral; this last one is a case special to the cathedral. It seems in many places that wafer bread was preferred to common bread but at Durham Cathedral, common bread was used. However, Mr. Smart seems to scruple with the fact that, “a knife to be kept in the vestry for cutting of the sacramental bread, being appropriated only for that use” (H.A., 37), which probably “cancelled out” the commonness of the bread by providing a sacred knife for its cutting in the Liturgy. These cases were special in their application to Durham Cathedral, however, the Laudians all encouraged the placing of the holy table at the east end of the chancel, closing it with communion rails, and facing towards it during the prayer of consecration, which all infuriated the Puritans but because these were not unique to Durham, I have left out Mr. Smart’s comments on that matter. Dr. Cosin responds to the needs for the chancel to be kept as it was in times past, “And the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past. That is, distinguished from the body of the church by a frame of open work [rood-screen], and furnished with a row of chairs or stools [stalls] on either side: and if there were formerly any steps up to the place where the altar or Table stood, that they should be suffered to continue so still, and not to be taken down and laid level with the lower ground, as lately they have been by violence and disorder, contrary to law and custom” (H.A., 67).

The Puritans offer a description of the actions of the liturgy as they occurred in Durham Cathedral. “And for the order of the Communion, when they come first to the Communion-table, at the entering of the door every one doth make a low congie to the altar, and so takes their place... And then the priest goeth up to the Table, and there he makes a low congie...Taketh up the basin, and maketh a low congie. He goeth to all the communicants, the quire excepted, and taketh the offerings in that bason; he goeth up to the table, maketh a congie, and setteth down the bason. Then he goeth to the end of the Table, and beginneth the exhortation, and goeth on until he cometh at Lift up your hearts, that he singeth, and the quire answereth, singing in strange tunes, so far as priest and answer goeth: then for the rest, one of the priests reads some part of it at the end of the Table. And another sitting on his knees at the middle of the table, and after the prefaces, the priest begins Therefore with angels and archangels, until he come to the three Holies, and then the quire singeth until the end of that: so in order he doth administer the Communion” (H.A., 38). The description of the Communion Service at Durham obviously reveals the extent of the Laudian scheme as a ceremonially more complex affair than the majority of English parishes at the time. “Congie” in this context means a bow. Therefore, we can determine the times when the bow was used during the service at Durham. According to this account, a bow was made towards the altar at the entrance of the minister to the chancel, as the priest approaches the Table, at the Offertory both before the collection is taken and at the presentation of the basin. From the context, it looks like one priest would stand at the north end and another kneeling in the midst of the altar, or at the west end, but the account is vague in this regard. The account seems to indicate that the service was chanted and also sung by the choir.

One curiosity which seems to be limited to John Cosin was his blessing of objects associated with the administration of Communion. He seems to have blessed the cushions at the communion rails before divine service. “Dr. Cosin did consecrate the cushions and forms by crossing them, before the people came to the Communion” (H.A., 37). The 1552 Liturgy had not allowed for the consecration of material objects as it removed the consecration prayer for the baptismal water. The 1662 BCP restored this prayer, perhaps at the influence of Cosin.

3. Specific Practices

3.1 Bowing at the Name of Jesus

One of the core goals of the Laudian movement was the enforcement of the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and the canons of the Church of England. One such canon which they felt was in desuetude was Canon 18, part of which dictates that:

“in time of Divine Service the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed; testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures, their inward humility, Christian resolution, and due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of God to mankind, for this life, and the life to come, are fully and wholly comprised.”

The dedication to this gesture characterized the Laudians, “When JESUS is named, then off goeth the cap, and down goeth the knees” (H.A., 109); “And; with their versicles, one to be said by the priest, the other by the parish clerk or people; with their times when to kneel, when to sit, when to stand, when to curtsey at the Name of JESUS, when to glory their LORD at the beginning of their Gospel, or at the end of their Psalms; with their collects and anthems..." (96).

Coupled with this gesture towards the holy name of Jesus, the Laudians also seem to encourage bowing towards the altar, which, predictably, was not something the Puritans appreciated. There is ample evidence of the Laudians bowing at the name of Jesus and towards the altar. “At Winton… [Archbishop Laud] required them … to rail the Communion-tables, place it altarwise, to bow towards it…” (H.A., 159), likewise at Winchester there were, “adorations towards the Communion-table,” and at Hereford, the communicants were required to, “bow so often as the Name of JESUS was mentioned,” and, it was required that, “every one should bow toward the altar” (H.A., 160). One man writes, “He does not say the mass indeed in Latin: but his hood,his cope, his surplice, his rochet, his altar railed in, his candles, and cushions and book therein, his bowing to it, his bowing, or rather nodding at the Name of JESUS, his organs, his violins, his singing-men, his singing-boys, with t heir alternate jabbering and mouthings (as unintelligible as Latin service), so very like popery” (H.A., 167). This gesture (and others) were often compared to the practices of the Roman Church, “The great conformity and likeness, both continued and increased, in our Church to the Church of Rome… praying towards the east; the bowing at the name of JESUS; the bowing to the altar, towards the east” (H.A., 194). The list of complaints continues, “Upon these and other reasons it was, that many ceremonies introduced into the mass-books and other popish breviaries, such as ducking and bowing to the East” (H.A., 328). Likewise, an interesting work titled Points of Popery in the Elizabethan Church lists this practice at number forty-one, “Putting off the caps at the Name of JESUS.” A comparison of difference of practice in the English Church lists the following differences among churchmen:

“Some bow at the name of JESUS, while others of the same Communion pay no more reverence to that than to the Name of CHRIST.

“Some bow to the east or altar (which you will), while others that would be thought as good churchmen condemn that practice as superstitious.”

As we can see the gesture of bowing at the name of Jesus was one which the Laudians emphasized but which the Puritans disagreed with seriously. The Laudians really had not stepped beyond the limits of the Prayer Book and were, in fact, encouraging the practice of a gesture that was required by canon law. Perhaps, it is better to note that the Puritans disagreed with the canon itself and not with the Laudians’ practice of it.

3.2 Copes and Vestments

In matters of vesture, the Laudians were not innovative; they solely enforced the canonical requirements on their clergy. The Canons of 1604 specify that,

“24. IN all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, the holy Communion shall be administered
upon principal feast-days, sometimes by the Bishop, if he be present, and sometimes by the
Dean, and at sometimes by a Canon or Prebendary, the principal Minister using a decent
Cope, and being assisted with the Gospeller and Epistler agreeably, according to the

“25. IN the time of Divine Service and Prayers in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches,
when there is no Communion, it shall be sufficient to wear Surplices; saving that all Deans,
Masters, and Heads of Collegiate Churches, Canons, and Prebendaries, being Graduates,
shall daily, at the times both of Prayer and Preaching, wear with their Surplices such Hoods
as are agreeable to their degrees”

These canons represent the official interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric by the Elizabethan, Jacobean, and consequently, the Caroline Church. In summation, in divine service, where there was a Communion, the principal minister, as well as the gospeller and epistler, were to vest in cassock, surplice, hood, tippet, and cope. In times of service when the Communion was not administered, the cope was not to be worn. The Laudians did not deviate from this standard but it seems that the Puritans were not fans of the official policy.

3.3 Facing East

Another feature of the Laudian program was the orientation of the priest towards the east in the parts of the liturgy which were directed to God in prayer. Sometimes this is simplified to mean that the Laudians encouraged facing east during the prayer of consecration but it is more accurate to say that they encouraged facing east for all prayer. As one would expect, this was not popular with the Puritans who complained of, “their Epistles, their Gospels, the one to be read with the priest's face towards the west, the other with his face towards the east” (H.A., 96).

“He hath caused a bell to be hung up in his chancel, called a sacring-bell, which the clerk always rings at the going up to the second service, which he performs with variety of postures, sometimes turning his face towards the south, sometimes towards the east, and sometimes towards the west.” 262, against Dr. Pocklington

“That he commanded the Deans of the said College to severely punish according to the expressed infliction, who would not likewise convert their faces towards the east at ‘Glory be to the FATHER,’ &c. and many times in the Divine Service, so that he did luxuriously introduce Popish innovations.”

One man complains of Dr. Cosin’s posture at Communion and at Morning Prayer, “They offended likewise in turning their faces to the east, and forcing the people so to do… In this Dr. Cosins offended, not only in turning the reader’s desk at morning prayer, and the Dean’s pue [sic], that they could not sit with their backs to the east; but also when he administered the Communion he stood on the west side of the Table with his face towards the east, and back towards the people; which is a ceremony the Pope’s priests are enjoined to use at Mass.” The ad orientam position was closely identified with the Roman Church (as it was mandated then), “They constantly observe that unlawful ceremony of turning faces to the east, not allowed by the Church; and some, when they officiate at the Communion Table, look toward the east, turning their backs to the people, after the manner of Mass priests.”

3.4 Postures

Besides the specific Laudian postures and those contained in the 1604 canons, there was also considerable resistance to the enforcement of Prayer Book ceremonial postures, particularly of the standing at the Gospel. It seems that the complaint was against an unequal reaction to Scripture, i.e. why not stand at all readings? Here are some examples of this type of complaint,

“When the Old Testament is read, or the lessons, they make no reverence; but when the Gospel cometh, then they all stand up...... “ (109)

"The statutes of Hereford being imperfect, he caused to be cast in a new mould... In which it was required... Secondly, that they should officiate on Sundays and holydays in their copes. Thirdly, that they should stand up at the Creeds and Gospel, and Doxologies. Fifthly, that the prayer afore their sermons should be made according to the 55th canon..." (160)

“That the said Matthew Wren, being Bishop of Norwich the said year, 1636, in the Tower church in Ipswich, and other places, did in his own person use superstitious and idolatrous actions and gestures in the administration of the LORD’s Supper, consecrating the bread and wine, standing at the west side of the Table with his face to the east, and his back towards the people: elevating the bread and wine so high as to be seen over his shoulders, bowing low either to or before them when he, after the elevation and consecration, had set them down on the Table.”

3.5 Incense

There is considerable evidence that incense was used in churches during this period. The difficulty is establishing how the incense was used. There are two ways of using incense, first is in a purely perfumatory function, or to make the church smell better. This is also used to symbolize the prayers of the saints in calling the passage from Revelation to mind. The other use is to use incense to cense things or to bless them. There is ample evidence for the former practice but for the latter it is more difficult to establish. As we saw earlier, Bishop Andrewes’ chapel was equipped for the use of incense in public worship with, “"A triquertral censer, wherein the clerk putteth frankincense at the reading of the first lesson. The naricula, like the keel of a boat, with a half cover and foot, out of which frankincense is poured." Bishop Andrewe's Chapel 181). Likewise, and not surprisingly, Bishop Cosin also used incense, “"In Peter House there was on the altar a pot, which they usually called the incense pot... A little boat, out which the frankincense is poured, which Dr. Cosin had made use of in Peter House, here he burned incense" (182). I add my own reflection here, it does not seem that incense was used as it is in the Roman Rite or in modern Anglican churches by the Laudians, except perhaps by Bishop Andrewes. It seems to have been used in more of a perfumatory sense, or to fragrance the church in other words. It appears that the use of incense in worship was a later development, at least according to some sources, I point to David Brattson’s “Incense in Ante-Nicene Christianity,” although its association with the Church Society does question its bias.

3.7 Altars, candles, and linens

As with the adornment of the priest, the adornment of the altar, as it was called, was met with much opposition from the part of the puritans. Besides placing the altar against the east end of the church and railing it off, as it had been in times past, the Laudians also adorned the altar with linens, candlesticks, basins, corporals, and other cloths, and with the cross or crucifix. The Puritans viewed this as a return to the Papacy or a desire so to do by the part of the Laudian bishops. They also saw it as introducing an un-reformed theology of the Sacrament into the worship of the Church of England. While the theology of the Caroline Divines was more open to moderate realism than some of the other theologies of the Eucharist at the time, it was well within Reformed orthodoxy. It is also important to remember that the Prayer Book requires a “white linen cloth” to cover the altar and another to cover the elements after the Communion. Likewise, the Prayer Book requires the paten and chalice for the distribution of the elements as well. However, their fascination with the patristic altar was beyond the tolerance of the Puritans as we can see in the following examples.

In Bishop Cosin’s church, we see many adornments to the altar, which are recorded by people who went to these services and complained of the ceremonial complexity contained in them. "First of all it is enjoined, that the table or altar should be spread over with a clean linen cloth, or other decent covering, upon which the Holy Bible, the Common Prayer-book, the paten and chalice are to be placed: two wax candles are to be set on" (Bishop Cosin, 188). The “decent covering” was probably the “Laudian frontal” as we know them, although the text does not say this in itself. An interesting curiosity that is explored elsewhere in further detail is that although there were often two candlesticks with candles in them on the altar, they remained unlit unless they were needed to provide light, in most places, such as we see in the Defence of Laud for his practices, he says, “there were candlesticks with tapers, but not burning” (162). However, Bishop Cosin seems to have lit candles during the day, when they weren’t “necessary” in their natural purposes. The following offers a similar observation of an English church with unlit candles on the altar, “that I profess, when I came from beyond sea, about the year 1660 to Paul's and Whitehall, I almost thougt at first blush that I was still in Spain or Portugal; only the candles on our altars, most nonsensically, stand unlighted, to signify, what? The darkness of our noddles, or to tempt the chandlers to turn down-right papists, as the more suitable religion for their trade; for ours mocks them with hopes only. He gapes, and stares to see the lucky minute when the candles should be lighted; but he is chated, for they do not burn out in an age." 167

The following offers another description,

"When the deacon hath lifted the text of the Gospel from the altar, he gives it to the sub-deacon to carry at his back; two wax candles are lifted from the altar by two acolytes, to be carried burning before him so long as the Gospel is in reading; the cross or crucifix is also on the festival days carried before the Gospel, and also a censer with fire and incense; the book is crossed and perfumed, and when the lesson is ended the book by the deacon is kissed... From none of these superstitions we can be long secured: our deacons are begun already to be consecrate; the chief part of their office is their service at the Sacrament and their reading of Scripture; the orders of sub-deacons and acolytes are proclaimed to be convenient, if the church had maintenance for them, by Andrewes: the wax candles are standing on the altar already; the silver crucifix is avowed by Pocklington to have a mete standing upon the same altar; the crossings, and perfumings, and lights are maintained by Andrewes, as Canterbury sets him forth; the kissing of the book is now daily practiced" 192,193

Likewise, with Bishop Wren, we see similar adornments in his church. "Now what an Arminian and popish innovator this prelate [Wren] was in all particulars, the popish furniture of whose chapel, with basins, candlesticks, corporals, altar-cloth, a chalice with a cross upon it, and other popish trinkets" (189-191). It is interesting to note the equation of an adorned table or altar with Popery by this man writing against the Bishop. It also interesting to note that the chalice “with a cross upon it,” which perhaps could be the basis of his complaint against the chalice for not being “decent” to use the terminology. For instance, in Durham Cathedral, there were complaints against the “indecent” cope of Bishop Cosin which had an image on it.

In the Cathedral at Peterborough, there were many “additions” to the altar besides those required by the Prayer Book.

"The Table itself was thrown down, the table-cloth taken away, with two fair books in velvet covers, the one a Bible, the other a Common Prayer-Book, with a silver basin gilt, and a pair of silver candlesticks.

"Now behind the Communion-table there stood a curious piece of stone-work, admired much by strangers and travellers; a stately screen it was, well wrought, painted and gilt, which rose up as high almost as the roof of the church in a row of three lofty spires, with other lesser spires growing out of each of them, as it is represented in the annexed draft. This now had no imagery-work upon it, or anything else that might justly give offence; and yet, because it bore the name of the High Altar, was pulled all down with ropes, laid low and level with the ground" (194).

We see at Peterborough the adornment of the Prayer Book and Bible used in divine worship as well. And a concern with the “silver” maybe a bit too much adorned for the Puritans.

We come now to Archbishop Laud himself, who did not escape criticism for his practices either. In addition to the usual complaints against candlesticks, etc. Laud seems to have had several adornments with images on them, as is seen below in the quote.

“Upon this new altar he had much superstitious Romish furniture, never used in his predecessor’s days, as namely, two great silver candlesticks with tapers in them, besides basons and other silver vessels (with a costly Common Prayer-Book standing on the altar, which, as some say, had a crucifix on the bosses), with the picture of CHRIST receiving His last supper with His disciples in a piece of arras, hanging just behind the midst of the altar, and a crucifix in the window directly over it… This new altar furniture of his was proved and attested upon oath by Sir Nathaniel Brent, Dr. Featly, Dr. Haywood (his own popish chaplain), who justified his lord that he did it in imitation of the king’s chapel at Whitehall, where he had seen not only tapers and candlesticks standing, but likewise burning in the day-time, on the altar.” ( 338, 339).

Laud defends several of his practices, in this instance the setting up of a credence table,

"The third sort of innovations in my chapel charged against me, is the setting up of a Credentia, or side-table, my own and my chaplains' bowing towards the table or altar at our approaches to it, our going in and out from the chapel; my chaplains' with my own using of copes therein, at the celebration of the LORD'S Supper, and solemn consecration of Bishops... that the bread, when the Sacrament was administered, was first laid upon the Credentia, from whence he took it in his hand, and then carried it to, and kneeling down upon his kneel presented it, laid it on the LORD'S Table, on which there were candlesticks with tapers, but not burning, as he had seen them at Whitehall..." Archbishop's Laud Defense 162

Most of the examples given are of cathedral churches or episcopal chapels but parish churches also adopted the adornment of the altar such as the example given here of St. Mary’s, Bruton, “A correspondent has obligingly furnished us with the following examples of village churches, in which the rubrick that requires two lights to be placed upon the high altar, is at this day observed: S. Mary’s, Bruton, Somersetshire, where the candlesticks are silver, and bear the legend ‘The gift of Mr. John Gilbert to Bruton church, 1744’” (339).

4. Abnormalities

It appears that a few over-enthusiastic clergy attached themselves to the Laudian program and consequently “overdid” the ceremonial program as envisioned by Charles I and Archbishop Laud. These clergy appear to have been either ignorant (meaning uneducated) or recusants, or both. Among the practices we find them doing that are beyond the standard Laudian program include the elevation of the Host, the inclusion of Ps. 43 at the beginning of the service, prayers to the saints, a belief in purgatory, the belief that auricular confession is necessary for salvation, and a veneration to the Virgin Mary. It is important to note that these practices do not represent the locus of the ceremonial program envisioned by Charles and Laud but were aberrations from it. It is beyond the scope of this piece to determine whether or not these men knowingly strayed from the Laudian vision.

We learn of these abnormalities from charges brought against certain vicars in the period. I have found three examples in reading the material for this piece. First, Nicholas Andrewes, Rector of Guilford was accused of, “delivering the bread in the Sacrament, he elevateth it, looks upon it, and bows low unto it, and useth other frequent bowing in administering the Sacrament,” his error was the elevation of the Sacrament. Another rector, John Mountford was accused of adding to the service when, “in his going up to the Table to read the second service, usually caused that part of the 43 ^rd Psalm to be sung, viz. ‘Then shall I to the altar go, of GOD, &c.’” (265), which was not part of the authorized liturgy, although certain divines, such as Lancelot Andrewes, would probably not have regarded this addition as an error. Edward Marten was charged as praying, “for the saints and people departed this life, and that they may be eased and freed of their pains in purgatory’” (265). James Buck, vicat of Stradbroke, Suffolk, was charged with stating that, “’auricular confession to the priest is absolutely necessary to salvation, once a year, or at least once in man’s life.’” He also venerated the Virgin Mary in the same way that the name of Jesus was venerated, “He used to make as low obeisance at the mentioning of the Virgin Mary’s name as he doth at the name of JESUS,” and he also encouraged adoration to the altar in the same manner, “and doth not only bow thrice at his going [to] and thrice at his return from, the Communion-table set altarwise; but teacheth ‘that adoration is due to it, when the holy Mysteries are absent,’ &c. and hath denied the cup to divers to whom he gave the bread” (265, 266).

5. General Complaints against Liturgical Worship

While the purpose of this article was to discuss the practice of the Laudians, I found several interesting accounts against liturgical worship in general which I thought would be good to put in an “appendix” of sorts to this post.

The first comes from a work titled “A Short View of the Prelatical Church of England,” which voices a general complaint against the Church of England and more particularly of her “wearisome Liturgy”:

"The prelatical service is the cathedral service, consisting in these things. (1.) In a long wearisome Liturgy, read after a singing manner, syllables and words drawn out into a tedious length; which Liturgy is framed out of three Romish books, the Breviary, Purtuis [sic], and the Mass Book, so as King James said of it, 'that it's an ill said mass from which it needeth purging, and from some vain repetitions, and from a corrupt translation of Holy Scriptures, and other abuses thereof.'  (2.) In an unedifying singing and piping on organs.  (3). In superstitious cringing to the Name of JESUS, towards the altar, towards the east.  (4). In a form observations of habits, surplices, hoods, copes, variety of gestures, and ceremonious devotions devised by men" (161).

"It remains that we should parallel with our Book the accidental parts of the Mass, so to call them. The most of these we have actually -- their vestments, hoods, surplices, rochets, mitres, copes of all colours filled with numbers of images, palls, corporals, chalices, patens, offertory basins, wax candles, veils, rails, stalls, lavatories, repositories, reclinatories (for confessions within the chancel), bowings, duckings, crosses, kissings, coursings, perfumings. These we have already; and what of the ceremonies we want, it were easy to fetch testimonies from our party's writs for their lawfulness, or at least to shew the necessity of taking them, whenever they shall be imposed by our Bishops" 193

Puritans, who wished to further “reform” the Church of England thought that at its current state, the Church was not adequately reformed and was encouraging English peasants to superstition and Romanism,

"The great conformity and likeness, both continued and increased, in our Church to the Church of Rome, in vestures, postures, ceremonies, and administrations, namely, as the Bishops' rochets and in the lawn sleeves, the four-cornered cap, the cope and surplice, the tippet, the hood, and the canonical coat; the pulpits clothed, especially now of late, with the Jesuits' badge [IHS] upon them every way; the standing up at Gloria PATRI and at the reading of the Gospel; praying towards the east; the bowing at the name of JESUS; the bowing to the altar, towards the east; cross in baptism; the kneeling at the Communion; the turning of the Communion-tables altarwise; setting images, crucifixes, and conceits over them, and tapers and books upon them, and bowing and adoring to or before them; the reading of the second service at the altar, and forcing people to come up thither to receive, or else denying the Sacrament to them; terming the altar to be the Mercy-seat, or the place of GOD ALMIGHTY in the church, which is a plain device to usher in the Mass" 194

“They [the Caroline Divines] tell us… that the Church of England (they take that Church commonly, by a huge mistake, for their own prevalent faction therein) doth not only keep innumerable images of CHRIST and the Saints in the most eminent and conspicuous places of their Sanctuaries, but also daily erect a number of long and large ones, very curiously dressed; and that herein they have reason to rejoice and glory above all other reformed Churches.”

Perhaps this piece is the best demonstration of anti-liturgical spirit against the Church of England. Ironic that it is a litany of sorts against liturgical worship.

“Do they kneel at confession and absolution? So we.

“Do they repeat the *Pater noster,* kneeling, after the priest? So we.

“Do they stand up and repeat the Apostle’s Creed? So we.

“Do they, upon the reading or singing *Quicunque vult*, or Athansius’ Creed, stand? So we.

“Do they, upon the rehearsal of the Ten Commandments, kneel asking mercy and grace after every command? So we.

“Do the priest and people read the psalms alternately, verse by verse? So we.

“Do they sit at reading the lessons? So we.

“Do they uncover themselves in churches? So we.

“Do they sing their anthems, and canticles, and psalms, and prayers with music, vocal and instrumental, as organs, flutes, viols, &c.? So we in our cathedrals.

“Do they bow to the east, and Name of JESUS? So we.

“Of all wwhich not one word in all the New Testament.

“Is there not a symbolizing with popery in the places of worship?

“The places of our worship are either such as were built and consecrated by papists, which we took from them, retaining the saints’ names they were dedicated to, as SS. Mary, Peter, Paul, All-Saints, or such places as we have built by their example, posited east and west: consecrated, and dedicated to some saint and angel, and which we take to be more holy than any other place, as they did, and give great reverence by uncovering the head, and bending the kneel and upon entrance into it, bowing to the east and altar placed therein: and keep the annual feast of dedication, wake or paganalia, as the papists, and the heathen before them, did. Of all which, not one word in all the New Testament.

“Do we not also symbolize with them in the priesthood, who are principally to minister in those places of worship?

“Have they superior priests, viz. bishops and archbishops, in the room of the heathen flamens and archflamens, for sacerdotal service in provinces and dioceses? So have we.

“Have they inferior priests, distinguished by dignities, names, and services, as deans, chapters, prebends, archdeacons, to minister in cathedrals; and parsons, vicars, and curates to officiate in parishes? So we.

“Have they proper distinguishing habits for the clergy, and particular vestments for their holy ministrations, as albs, surplices, chasubles, amicts, gowns, copes, maniples, zones, &c.? So we.

“Of all which not one word in all the New Testament.”

“Some bow at the name of JESUS, while others of the same Communion pay no more reverence to that than to the Name of CHRIST.

“Some bow to the east or altar (which you will), while others that would be thought as good churchmen condemn that practice as superstitious.

“Some use the LORD’s Prayer kneeling, others pay no more respect to that than to any other prayer.

“Some only say over their prayers, while a more merry sort sing them out; nay there are not wanting some jovial sparks that cant into their very Creed.

“Some preach in the surplice, while most pull it over their own ears before they go into the pulpit.

“Some make prayers in the pulpit after the Litany’s over; some are only pray wees that bid prayer.

“Some read the service in the desk, while others go with a part of it to the Communion Table.

“The Communion Table in some places is railed about; in many ‘tis e’en left as open as any other part of the church.

“In some topping churches you shall see huge unlighted candles (for what use nobody alive can tell); but the meaner churches are forced to shift without them.

“Some are for a consort of musick, others only for organs; some dislike both, and others can get neither.”

Sources

Adrian, James M. ‘George Herbert, parish ‘dexterity’, and the local modifications of Laudiansm.’

Dorman, Mariane. 1999. “Andrewes and English Catholics’ Response to Cranmer’s Prayer Books of 1549 and 1552”. Reformation Studies Conference, 1999. Westminster College, Cambridge.

Stevenson, Kenneth. 2006. “Worship and Theology: Lancelot Andrewes in Durham, Easter 1617”. International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church. 6. 223-234.